Definition of the Modern Synthesis

Great,I'll await for you to address all my points. Because when you do, if your objective, there is no way you can deny my argument.In your discussion, you have not yet addressed the dishonesty of this current argument. I showed in my last post and previous posts that Larry was using Modern Synthesis in the same way that I was, before he conceded to my Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument. I gave several examples to this fact. And now, he claims that he is using this new blurred meaning to try and negate his very concession early on in the past thread.Face it, the original synthesis from the 30s and 40s was called the Modern Synthesis. This is a fact. The Synthetic theory came a lot later (late 70's early 80s) This also a fact. The synthetic theory is most popularly called the Current Synthesis, the Synthetic theory, or simply the Theory of Evolution. Some of the anticreationists Websites make the mistake and call it the Modern Synthesis, probably because they just don't know and spend most of their time gleaning info not about evolution, but simply how to attack creation science(oxymoron). But Your side has not presented one shread of evidence from an authoritative source that states that current theory of Evolution is properly called the Modern Synthesis. Period. Stop being a debater. And be an objective moderator. Your side has presented no evidence.Where I on the other hand have given you the main work by Sir Julian Huxley coining the term Modern Synthesis. Showing that the original synthesis was in fact called the Modern Synthesis.And the authoritative quote that shows that the Current Synthetic theory grew and grows and around the original synthesis. This shows inarguably that the theories are distinct.Next, I already bought up this definition blur you guys want to make about the word mutation. If you semantically define mutation to just mean a change in an organisms genome. Yes, a horizontal mechanism would be a mutation. However, Big Big Big Big Big problem when you do that. The word then has no meaning at all in terms of how it is actually used in Biology and Genetics. You would be ignoring the fact that types of mutations are defined in Biology and Genetics and these types do not include horizontal mechanisms. You can't simply redefine the word out of context. AndFuthermore, You do not want to do this. It would be a major point to my side. You see, it would mean that mutation do not have to be random. See horizontal mechanism result from populations of diverse live and nonliving organisms and/or there DNA interacting with an organisms Genome. This process is complex, yes. But it certainly not random. It's like will it rain or snow. Or Who will Johnny pick as a sex partner. Contingent on many variables, yes. But mutations within genomes as Biologist and Geneticist define them from an evolutionary standpoint are random, not contingent.I mean come on. Don't you realize that your reaching terribly to semantics to define terms in ways that the disciplines do not. And then, you are claiming that I, who am precise with my definitions and using actual science to define scientific terms, are in fact using terms a special way.Look at any Biology or Genetics textbook and see if the way and the types of mutations that they define allow for horizontal mechanisms and/or allow evolutionary mutations to be non-random. If so, please present a quote. I am completely unaware of any respected textbook that does. Also, at the very least, the infamous talkorigin link is wrong again. Look at their primer on Evolutionary Biology. The way they define Mutation makes my Argument.Once again, Honestly critique the argument of your side. I am using the actually respected scientific definitions of scientific terms. And your side is trying to use resemantically defined or incorrectly popularized scientific definitions. We are having a debate. The language of which is the real Scientific evidence that we have about biodiversity. This is Scientific not biblical. It's not up to your personal interpretations and alternative combined dictionary meanings. The actual scientific terms, the evidence that they point too, and their actual scientific usage are all that is possible in a debate using the language of science.

Larry,Let's examine some of the sites that you presented. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#typesGreat. Talkorigin has a section where it defines mutation the way your trying to. Fine. Where is the respected textbook where it is defined as Random or Nonrandom. It basically doesn?t address this issue. Also, the fact that it defines mutation differently in different section actually poses a problem for your blind reliance on this website, not a problem in my argument. http://www.msu.edu/course/mic/431/chapt03.htmPathetic. Website. It was a summary of study notes. It was not a respected textbook and in types of mutations did not mention all the horizontal mechanisms, if any. Brings up the Randomness issue. But presents Randomness in terms of Randomness vs. Directed. An argument that I have not even made.You posted: a link to a quote by Mike SyvanenBefore whining about this quote:
"It is difficult to imagine, mostly because that is not the way we are trained to think. If you accept that mutation can fashion new structures, why is it so radical to include
the contributions of foreign genes as one of the mutational mechanisms?
Please look up Mike's citations in either academic journals or as far as books. One of the books will make you look especially silly. ?I must admit. This was great reading. I disagree with a major assumption made by the author without evidence. But I could tell by some of his argument that he is aware of the issues in the debate that we have yet to move on and discuss. But this is digression.My point: It?s funny that you would quote the section of the post that illustrates part of my argument. Then, claim that there are journals or books that make my argument look silly. Rather than present this web reference. You should have posted those. Where are they?You wrote:?They are random in relation to fitness are they not? No mutation is random in a strict sense, only random in relation to fitness. ?This sort of loose usage of terms can not be allowed. You have presented yourself as the type of debator that attempts to hide his argument in semantics. Your going to define what you mean preciesely Define in detail what you mean by ?Random in relation to fitness.? What exactly do you mean by ?No mutation is random in a strict sense?? It has direct bearing on the discussion and what my response should be.You wrote:?Quite a few do describe mutations as changes in heritable information which is very broad. They then usually divide up mutations and separate them from hgt since often hgt involves more than one step. However, the introduction of foreign genetic material into a genome is a mutation. If there is a mistake at defining HGTs as mutations it is only in that HGTs involve recombination and mutations. ?Here, You are supporting my argument, but not strongly. Obviously the definition of mutation can be broad. That?s how a semantic argument is possible. But the context is not allowing Horizontal mechanisms. What you have stated?What is an HGT? Be specific. Clearly define what you are talking about. Why? Because on many occasions Horizonatal Transfer and Plasmid transfer are considered as a part of the paradgim. And the reason is simple. Even though Bacteria are asexual. The transfer of plasmids and DNA directly is seen as the evolutionary precursor to sexual reproduction. Thus, it is seen as a primitive form of the same paradigm. It works because the bacteria are considered organisms within the same genome.I mean come on. You must know this. When a human male and female have a kid. The child is the product of horizontal transfer of sorts, but the two organisms are clearly apart of the same genome. But once again, where in these text books do they include a horizontal mechanisms exchanging DNA from a foreign Genome of an organism into the Genome of an entirely different organisms with a different Genome. Where does a textbook list the additional types of mutations that the talkorigin link attempts to lump together.You see, Horizontal transfer is a horizontal mechanism, but so is sexual reproduction. But I am talking about and have been talking about horizontal mechanisms that involve organism live and not alive from different genomes. The problem that I think you might be having with debating me is that I am extremely precise with my arguments. In order to avoid these sort of semantic parachutes. It makes my post quite wordy, but effective. Oftentimes, you present some point later in your argument. But typically, I have already accounted for it. And it?s like I have to repeat the same argument over an over so that you can realize that it has already been addressed.

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 03-12-2001).]

Percy,I would like to point out in Larry’s discussion of the Ayala quote that he simply disagreed with me. Fine. But did not present cooberating evidence. The quote that he presented says the exact argument that I am a making.All this begs the question.What is your side now trying to argue?It is clear that the term Modern Synthesis has been used in more than one way.I am saying that calling the Current Synthesis the Modern Synthesis is not correct and no respectable source does. Your side has not provided a respectable source that defines the current evolutionary theory as the Modern Synthesis.But this is not even important. It has been demonstrated that the original synthesis from the 30s and 40s was in fact called the Modern Synthesis.When I established my argument, I defined the Modern Synthesis not as the Current Synthesis but as the original synthesis. There was no disagreement with my definition and I have shown that during the original argument that Larry defined the Modern Synthesis as the original synthesis as well. So thus, I made my point. So I structured my original argument in a way that avoids this semantic argument. Your only counterargument can be that the original synthesis was not called the Modern Synthesis. But my evidence has demonstrated that I am in fact correct.In a similar fashion, I can clearly show that when Gene was asked to define all the types of mutation that he was arguing for. His definition that was not disagreed about by Larry did not include horizontal mechanisms involving a different Genome.Therefore, my argument that this orignal synthesis is a partial theory is in fact correct and once again proven.Are you keeping track of what has actually been demonstrated.I have shown that the orignal synthesis was called the Modern synthesis.
I have shown that current evolutionary theory is called the Synthetic theory or the Current Synthesis.Where is the other sides respectable source showing that current evolutionary theory is called the Modern Synthesis? If you have read this in one of the post, please present it. I read all of this stuff and have yet to read the most quintessential point in this tangent.And finally, I proved my argument regardless of this tangent anyway.So forsake of argument let’s assume MS has two meanings. I argued clearly defining that I was using the first. The opposition agreed and also was using the first. I prove my point. Weeks later the opposition brings up the second definition. Forgetting that he conceding not only to the first under direct questioning, but admitted that he was not using the second.Once again, I am not getting the point of all of this. It usually isn’t this cut and dry in debates. But in this case, how much more obviously can I prove my point. I'll reintroduce a quote that I used before. http://www.pku.edu.cn/academic/xb/97/_97e619.htmlAlso, I was told that you guys could not get access to this site before. So It would not surprise me if you somehow can't again. But check out this abstract of Zhang Yun’s work. He has devoted most of his research to clearing up the discrepancies in the rates of Evolution. His work clearly defines Modern Synthesis as I do.The Abstract of his research, just in case you have trouble with the link again:"The recent debates between different evolutionary views involved mostly in rates of evolution. Contradictory conclusions have been drawn from the studies of evolution rate at different levels of organization, and led to exclusion between different doctrines of evolution. The random molecular evolution with a stable and uniform rate, interpreted by the neutral theory, is in conflict with the nonuniform adaptive evolution at phenotypic level;the adaptive and gradual evolution under natural selection at population level, advocated by the modern synthesis based on microevolution, could not coupled with the "punctuated", "explosive" or "catastrophic" macroevolution, demonstrated by fossil records. These contradictions were mostly resulted from using different variables for measurement of evolution rates. The rates of evolution measured at different levels of organization may have different senses, thus the controversies between the different doctrines may have no equivalent words. The timing of major evolutionary events in the long history of life on Earth shows apparent nonuniformity:most important evolutionary events occurred in the earliest and latest stages of the life history, and in relatively short time. The prebiotic chemical evolution, origins of life, the fundamental cell structures and metabolic pathways, and the foundations for biological evolution and biosphere formation were established in about 300-500 Ma time interval in the beginning of life history (4.0 to 3.5 Ga ago). Emergence of the advanced organisms and remarkable increase of biodiversity, as well as most major innovation of organism structures took place in the latest stage of life history (since 700 Ma). This nonuniformity of megaevolution here is interpreted as the results of coevolution between the life and the Earth's physical environments. The present dissension in evolution theory is temporary, resulted from the progresses of biology and related sciences. The different doctrines of evolution will certainly toward to unification and to a new synthesis. "(R.D.1997-07-28 P.D.1997-11-20 Vol.33 No.6 pp.794-803)Zhang Yun (College of Life Science, Peking University, Beijing, 100871)He describes the contradictory conclusion between different doctrines and list the Modern Synthesis as one of them. Thus, his usage of the term makes it clear that it must be a part of and not the entire whole. And he concludes The different doctrines of evolution will certainly toward to unification and to a new synthesis. Shows that this is more evidence for my argument.I await your response to this and my two other posts.

Percy and Larry,This exactly what I mean about you not being objective.My argument here is simple and your response completely missed it.You agree that the Modern Synthesis is defined more than one way.When I presented my main argument that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory.
I defined what I meant by Modern Synthesis.
In debate your side agreed with my definition. And I had them to directly agree that we were not using the second definiton. (My Post 27 and 31 of thread MSCES)Now, After my Horizontal Mechanism point proves that the Modern Synthesis, defined the way it was in the actual argument, is a partial theory. Your side is making the claim that we were using the second definition. This is not honest. And I have presented the fact that your side was not arguing the second definition. (My Post 27 and 31 of thread MSCES)As moderator, I am waiting for you to evaluate this argument objectively. Yet, at every turn, you are avoiding this which is the real point of this discussionExamples of you being a debator. Giving your personal opinion and not evidence for your sides argument, this unnecessary tangent.Please do not create straw mans. When have I argued that the Modern Synthesis was replaced in the 70s and 80s or that it is a dead theory. Like Yung said, it is merely one of many Evolutionary views within the Current Synthesis. Or Ayala, The current synthetic theory has grown around this original synthesis. You act as if I said the Modern Synthesis is a poor or dead theory. I, on numerous occasions have said that it is a great theory. And come on. What’s with this poor earth analogy. If the core is the center of the Earth. They are different things. The core is not the earth. However, the Earth consist of a part that is called the core. Get it. Partial theory, i.e. my argument. My point, once again, proven by your own analogy. That’s why I consistently say they are in agreement with me.Where is this straw man coming from that I am saying that the Modern Synthesis is not sometimes claimed to be the Current synthesis? The straw man that Modern Synthesis is used in only one way. I have not argued that. It is a lot of times. In your list of sources on the topic, I hope you can agree that many of them don’t concur. How many times do anticreationist argue that Creationist do not know what they are talking about when they argue against NeoDarwinism? Sites like Talkorigin acts as if an interpretation that say that NeoDarwinism is the same as the Modern Synthesis is incorrect. Yet, some of your sources that you are basing your premise on allow for them to be one in the same. Once again, ambiguity of terms is what semantic argument are based on. At the end of the day, you will probably just prefer that we differentiate what we are talking about by using the terms Original synthesis(Modern Synthesis the way it was actually defined in this argument) and Evolutionary synthesis(a term that is basically the same as saying Theory of Evolution).In all honesty, these straw man’s are not as bad as the one’s that Larry is trying to slip under the radar. The unsupported claim that I have argued that Modern Synthesis does not include Genetic Drift or the argument that the Modern Synthesis was replace by subsequent discoveries in Genetics.You see, what you are really missing is the fact that even the Current Synthesis rarely mentions horizontal mechanisms as well. But the main reason that I am so adamant, is that one difference between the Modern Synthesis and Current Synthesis, is that the Current Synthetic theory of Evolution is typically just called ToE. This is an important power that it has. Because all subsequent developments can arguably be incorporated into it. So even if elements of it are completely proven wrong, the name Current Synthesis, Synthetic theory of Evolution, and Theory of Evolution can live on. I can’t argue against an all encompassing theory. It would have been an exercise in futility to debate that an all encompassing theory that has the ability to evolve is a partial theory.Finally, Ironically, the tangent that we have been having about the Modern Synthesis is identical to the Bible. If I use the term Bible and define it to mean only the old testament, I would be extremely precise in my terminology. The term Ta Bible or the Bible was the term given to the original synthesis of Hebrew text in the Septuagint. This synthesis existed before any of the writings of the new testament were even concieved. If the other side of the debate, uses this precise definition as well for the word Bible and looses an argument on the Bible using this definiton. They can not then arguene can define the Bible to mean the old testament and the new testament. Under this alternative definiton, we did not loose debate.Even though this alternate definition is a possibility, one could even say more popular though not as precise, it simply was not the definition used by both sides in the previous debate. They would still loose the argument because in a debate once terms are defined and used by both sides. You can’t ex post facto change the meaning of the terms quintessential to the debate. Not only is such a process dishonest, but it simply does not allow debate to be possible. Now, for a future debate one could use the terms original bible and Christian Bible or in our case original synthesis and Evolutionary Synthesis (though I would prefer Current Synthesis). This terminology change for future debate would not change the fact that the previous debate was lost.Finally, Finally, all the information that I have read by you and Larry on this topic has clearly illustrated that the term has multiple uses. While not the main reason for this current tangent, It appears to me that your side has effectively demonstrated that, unlike in my Bible example, the ambiguity in terminology stems from the very beginning. My separation of Modern Synthesis from Current Synthesis is definitely more precise and eliminates ambiguity and you would probably prefer Original Synthesis and Evolutionary Synthesis. But, if I did not define the terms as was done earlier in the debate, the ambiguity would be unavoidable. I simply was not aware that the Modern Synthesis was also called the Synthetic theory of Evolution from the beginning. I am going to have to double check Sir Huxley and T. from before 44s. I already know that T. definately called his current ubdate of the theory, current theory not MS, and at the same time, the Synthetic theory in the 70s. Also, Mayr in his earlier work and his recent work in Evolutionary Synthesis would also have to mention this point in his 50 page outline of developments in the Synthetic theory. But if all this does in fact pan out as it probably will, it is good to know.

Percy,Are you intentionally dodging the real argument? Please don’t. I can’t debate in a forum if the other side can flip flop on their argument. Evaluate my post in MSCES, post 13 and 31 and show me where I am wrong.In my Post 13, I review what we were arguing and show Larry and I were in fact from the Beginning arguing that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory. Larry argues it is complete and needs no new mechanisms.
Larry No new mechanism is needed--you misunderstand the mechanism as it fits in the Modern Synthesis.He later admits that other mechanisms lead to common descent other than mutation which is contrary to his current argument that mutations include everything. And Even his rebuttle to post 13, he said he had called the Modern Synthesis a theory but was wrong.He quotes me when I (Thmsberry) asked the question: Do you accept that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory because the accumulation of mutations within a genome have been demonstrated as not being the only mechanism by which organisms evolve.
Larry replies: No one argues such a thing. But I'll accept that there are more than mutations that lead to increases in genetic diversity. Of course I have the entire discussion. Apparently you have a reading and writing problem.Larry even more in 14: I have never argued that mutations are the only mechanism to lead to common descent.In Post 31, He defines Modern Synthesis the way that I do.
Larry: Population genetics has advanced since the Modern Synthesis but the essential holding still stand.
This sentence only makes since if he was defining the MS the way that I was.Post 13 and 31 are essentially recaps of our argument. I give you these fragments only to give you a bit of what I am talking about 13 and 31 are more detailed. It shows how Larry has a habit of conceding parts of his argument and then later redefining his argument so there was no concession. I really can’t debate if this strategy is allowed. It’s even a mistake on his part or dishonest. But how can debate occur if its allowed. His most recent example of this is his change in the use of the word mutation and whether or not it includes Horizontal mechanisms.This is why I have not moved on. I need clarification on whether you actually tolerate this strategy.I need you to moderate this. Examine my Post 13 and 31. And if I am wrong on this, clearly and concisely tell me why. I don’t see how I can be wrong, even more so with this new redefining of the word mutation.Thanks.

You wrote:"Yeah, conveniently choosing the quotes of mine is dishonest. "But this is simply not what I am doing. The fragments I am presenting are just to get Percy's attention. In post 13 and 31 I refer to you and ask that Percy analyze the exchanges in detail.In this Tangent critiquing the previous debate, you appear to me to be changing what you argued in the past.Quotes from your evaluation of your argument in MSCES and now simply do not match what we were actually arguing in NUTFRfHE.If what you are saying now about Mutations and Modern Synthesis was consistent and clearly communicated in NUTFRfHe, instead of the long drawn out debate that we have been having, I would have just accomodated my terminology to mutually agreed upon meanings.For example: Instead of the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory, I would have debated The Original synthesis was incomplete. You would have quickly agreed then we would have moved on.Then, the debate would have just been that if horozontal mechanism and/or any other future discovered mechanisms that cause genomic changes are considered to be a part of the mutational paradigm in Biological evolution, then the idea of extrapolation and testing for rates of mutation in Biological Evolution is almost completely meaningless. (I am not trying to make this argument now, but only pointing out that this is where my argument would have went)I would have then argued that Biological Evolution currently has a paradox in it. And I would have used your Talkorigin links to do it. It makes the claim that "Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. " Yet at its core sits the Darwinian assumption that "The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." This quote comes from Futyama.Yet, Larry Moran write, "In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists..."I hope you can see the contradiction. Biological evolution claims that evolution does not occur at the level of an individual organism, but populations, genes, and phenotypes. Darwin was on the right track but imcomplete in its understanding. And then it turns around and assumes that all biodiverstiy can be traced back to an individual organism. Yet, Evolution today, unlike in Darwin's time, does not occur at the level of an individual organism. So the idea of an individual organism evolving and producing the variety of life we have today is not possible within this major paradigm shift. ParadoxYour view of the Modern Synthesis and mutation, if you would have presented it in the main debate, would have been irrelevant becuase I would just accomodated your meaning and the debate would have just moved on because it was the same thing as simply saying Biologial Evolution or Theory of Evolution.If you want to move on and debate my argument against our current understanding and assumption of Biological Evolution or the Theory of Evolution, like we were trying to before. I am fine with that.I just can't have a debate if you are not clear and consistent with your use of terms quintessential to the debate. It creates unnecessary tangents that end in semantic stalemates. Nobody is perfect. If there is a point where I define a term unclear to you, keep questioning me on it. And I will provide layer upon layer of detail, until we both are aware of what I mean. If the ambiguity is based on the word itself, I am always ready to accomodate by introducing a better word for the same idea.

Percy,You wrote:"The goal of this thread is to reach a consensus on the definition of the Modern Synthesis, not to assess the arguments in the other thread. Success in this thread is defined as arguing successfully with evidence for one's preferred definition of the Modern Synthesis.I don't know if it helps, but you get an A+ when it comes to arguing for your point of view. You're outstanding in that respect. But you get an F- when it comes to supporting that view with actual evidence."You still are dodging the real argument. You are clearly avoiding the fact that Larry appears to have changed his argument over time. If he had presented the argument that he is presenting now, most of our past threads of debate would have been avoided. You may think you are being objective, but because you agree with him. I don't think you are capable of evaluating my point.I really can't put myself in your shoes. I think your just being human. I can't be so sure that I would not use the same tack if I was you. I hope that I wouldn't. But who knows.Now, Let's not continue this straw man argument over the definition of Modern Synthesis. Afterall, the whole argument is only based on the fact that your side has flip flopped in its definition of the Modern Synthesis. Let's face it. You have been trying to place me in the straw man that the Modern Synthesis has only one meaning. I never made this argument. I even called this stance a predictable straw man, before your side even began to do it. And all I have been really arguing is that I know that the term is often used and define contradictory an ambiguist ways. But because of this fact, I defined my usage of the term, Before I even began the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument. Your side did not at that time present this brand new argument your trying to slip in about the definition of the Modern Synthesis. And in fact, made clear indications that you did not define the term differently. Because my argument is not the aforementioned straw man. My evidence does not have to consist of multiple ways that individuals define Modern Synthesis, but only the way that your side and me mutually agreed to define the term in our actual debate.Now, I am perfectly happy to avoid the entire issue by using the terms Original synthesis for the original usage of the term Modern Synthesis(or the way that I had defined it and your side originally agreed with) and Theory of Evolution(referring to the way that your side is now redefining the Modern Synthesis).Do you see the point that if Modern Synthesis was defined the way that your side currently is now, their is absolutely no reason to use the term Modern Synthesis? You might as well say ToE. The names are interchangeable.But I am ready to move on.

Larry and Percy,If I knew how to start a new thread, I would. Or Can I not start a new thread because I am not a moderator.If I could start a new thread, I would label it: Problems with the Current ToE.Let's begin with what I said I would.
The current ToE has a paradox in it. The talkorigin links What is Evolution and What is the Modern Synthesis will be used. It quotes Futyama that "Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. "Yet at the theories core sits the Darwinian assumption that "The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."Yet, Larry Moran writes, "In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists..."I hope you can see the contradiction. Current ToE claims that evolution does not occur at the level of an individual and organism, but at the level of populations, genes, and phenotypes. It claims that it has made a major paradigm shift from Darwinism's concerns at the individual and organism level. Then, the same theory turns around and assumes that all biodiverstiy can be traced back to an individual live organism. Yet, Evolution of today, unlike in Darwinism, does not occur at the level of an individual organism. So the idea of an individual live organism evolving and producing the variety of life we have today is not possible within this major paradigm shift. Paradox