Natural selection, survival of the fittest, this evolutionary theory appears in textbooks in schools around the world. Everyone is very familiar with it, and it has become common sense engraved in the brain.

It has been 163 years since Darwin published " The Origin of Species".

Natural selection and survival of the fittest. This evolutionary theory appears in textbooks in schools around the world. Everyone is very familiar with it. It has become common sense engraved in the brain.

But now, a secret and vigorous war in academia is taking place.

In 2014, eight top scientists from various fields of biology published an article in Nature magazine titled "Does Evolution Need to be Rethought?" 》
Their answer is "Need and extremely urgent" .

They proposed a new theoretical framework called "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" (EES).

In this framework, natural selection is no longer the most important driving force of evolution, but genetic variation, epigenetic , cultural evolution, etc. are equally important.

In 2016, more than 50 world-renowned scientists from the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States formed a team to study EES with the support of multiple institutions and use it to answer questions that cannot be answered by traditional evolution theory .

However, mainstream biology dislikes EES.

In 2015, when the Royal Society of London hosted the "New Trends in Evolution" conference, 23 members of the society submitted a joint letter of protest, condemning the spread of EES views and fearing that it would "confuse the public's thinking."

Those who study it are also ridiculed by mainstream academic circles as "trying to play revolutionaries" and "a product of the post-truth era." Why is there such strong opposition to

?

Recently " The Guardian " reported that This is a battle of ideas related to the fate of the theory of evolution. Changing it is equivalent to changing modern society.
On the other hand, it is also a status battle about "who is the mainstream figure and who is the marginal figure". Only those who win
can continue to write the grand narrative of biology.

The idea of ​​modifying the theory of evolution is not new. It has existed for decades.In the final analysis, it is Modern Darwinism (Modern evolutionary systhesis, also called a modern evolutionary systhesis)The flaws are obvious.

Everyone knows what modern Darwinian theory is about.
Due to accidental genetic variation, animals happen to acquire dominant abilities, such as good eyesight. This ability gives them a higher survival rate and the opportunity to give birth to more offspring.

These offspring have more or less inherited this advantageous gene, and they will also give birth to more offspring.

In this way, generation after generation, over a long period of time, the animal has become very good-sighted, like an eagle.

This theory is very simple and reasonable, but there is a problem. It starts from the middle of the evolutionary story.
Under Darwin's theory, the eyeball exists as a matter of course. The lens, iris, don't worry about it, it will appear naturally.

However, it is unlikely that an organ as complex and sophisticated as the eye could arise from a single genetic mutation.

Biologist Armin Moczek of Indiana University said: "The first eyes, the first wings, the first placenta , explaining how they emerged is a major step in the study of evolutionary biology. Motivation. "

"However, we don't have a good answer yet. The classic theory thinks that it is caused by an accident of good luck, and then the animals slowly change themselves. This actually cannot explain it. "
Another problem with modern Darwinian theory is that. It focuses only on natural selection and pays no attention to other evolutionary factors, resulting in a large number of talented scientists being relegated to the margins.

This is the fault of academia, not Darwin.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Darwin's theory was a theory that was gradually declining. People did not regard biology as an "orthodox science" because there were no formulas or data.

After Mendel's research was rediscovered in the 19th century, Darwin's theory absorbed its ideas and became more popular.

In the 1920s and 1930s, Ronald Fisher, the father of British statistics, and others proposed a modified Darwinian theory called modern Darwinism, which is what we learn in textbooks. Content.

This theory is as concise as a formula, with a lot of data statistics and analysis underneath. In an instant, biology became infinitely close to the so-called "orthodox science" like physics. Biologists proudly established various research associations and carried forward modern Darwin. There is nothing wrong with

, but the problem is that tries its best to turn the theory into a formula. It tries to explain all the problems of biological evolution ,

and those who cannot explain it, just... pretend not to see it.

It was the molecular biologist who first felt something was wrong. As early as the 1960s, they discovered that natural selection was not so important, but that neglected genetic variation was more important.

Molecular biologists have observed that molecules in cells are mutating at very fast rates, in numbers that conflict with modern Darwinian theory of "rare mutations."
Moreover, whether the mutated gene can be retained has nothing to do with natural selection. It seems to be completely accidental. Things that are beneficial to animals may not be preserved, and animals that are not beneficial may not disappear.

Then, paleontologists Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge discovered through studying fossils that evolution did not proceed slowly, but had several short and concentrated periods of large-scale evolution. break out.

Obviously, modern Darwinian theory cannot explain it.

followed by scientists studying animal plasticity. They found that animals can adapt to changing environments very quickly. It doesn't take millions of years, maybe just a few months.

Emily Standen, a zoologist at the University of Ottawa, studies the Senegalese polypterid fish. It is also called the golden dinosaur . It is a fish with gills and lungs that lives in the swamps of Africa.

Most of the time, the Senegalese multifin fish stays underwater. Only when the water in the swamp dries up, it will come ashore briefly and then burrow into the next pond.

Standen and his colleagues caught 111 young Senegalese multifin fish, raised them in the water for two weeks, and then moved them to the ground with only pebbles.

Because it has lungs, the Senegalese multifin fish lives quite well, and its body shows obvious changes after 8 months.

The bones on the fin become more elongated and pointed, the glenoid sockets become wider, and the muscles are larger. Their necks are softer, their lungs enlarged, and other organs shifted to accommodate it.

These changes make the Senegalese polypterid more adept at living on land and, at the same time, make them resemble a new species. all this only takes 8 months.

Biologist Armin Mozek made similar findings. He specializes in dung beetles . In cold environments, dung beetles will grow larger wings to feed, and in warm environments, they will grow a rounder body and a larger stomach.

This kind of change will happen in a very short time. What is even more surprising is that these physical changes all come from the same gene and there is no need for natural selection at all.

"The genes of this species are not obtained by the survival of the fittest from generation to generation. On the contrary, during the early development process, it can grow in many forms, allowing the dung beetle to survive in different situations." Mozek said.

David Pfennig, a professor at the University of North Carolina, studies spadefoot toads.

They are usually omnivores, but if they are fed only meat, spadefoot toads develop larger teeth, stronger jaws, and more cold-resistant guts.

Suddenly, they become full-on carnivores, eating only crustaceans and tadpoles.

"Species' plasticity provides an alternative evolutionary route," Pfinny said.

Biological plasticity is widely accepted in developmental biology, but in mainstream biology many scientists have never heard of it. It has been pushed to the margins, intentionally or unintentionally. There are many non-mainstream evolutionary theories such as

, such as epigenetics .
Parents who experience certain events (psychological or physical illness) can attach small chemical molecules to DNA. The DNA itself does not change, but these molecules can appear in their children and have different effects.

British geneticist Marcus Pembrey compiled data and found that if Swedish men in the 19th century experienced malnutrition during adolescence, their grandchildren were less likely to die from cardiovascular disease.
If a man is well-nourished, the likelihood of his grandson dying from diabetes increases.

The opposite effect was found in women, with the average lifespan of a woman's granddaughter shortened if she experienced malnutrition in the womb.

How can modern Darwinian theory explain these things?

"Modern Darwinian theory is like a president who has reneged on his campaign promises." The Guardian wrote, "It fails to satisfy people's demands, but it still sits in the Oval Office, holding the power."

EES's emergence is the edge Zone biologists stand together. This battle has been going on for several years, and there is still no winner. Supporters of

EES are also divided into conservatives and radicals .

Conservatives such as scientist Kevin Laland call for everyone to unite, but do not think this is a revolution. Modern Darwinian theory is still OK, as long as some modifications are made.

Among the radicals is Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of evolution, who believes that we should break free from the shackles of modern Darwinian theory and liquidate the bizarre fallacies of the past.

At an academic conference in 2017, he admitted that there is a culture war between EES supporters and mainstream biologists, "Yes, but we will definitely win."

Judging from the current battle situation, mainstream biologists still have the upper hand.
After all, the foundation built over so many years cannot be overthrown, and many scientists are unwilling to wade into the muddy waters of EES for fear of being considered grandstanding. The final results of the

battle may not be seen for decades.

I didn’t expect that the academic world would be so bloody.

It’s really interesting...