The objective of this article is to prove that “Seven non-Darwinian theories opposite to evolution”. However, the genetic drift represents the punctuated equilibrium, the shifting balance theory, the allopatric speciation theory and the species selection theory for the macroevolution. The genetic drift rapidly works in a small and isolated population and not works in a large population. Hence, genetic drift means small and isolated population and vice-versa. But the genetic drift creates zero variation. But there is no variation (raw materials of any kind of evolution); there is no evolution. Hence, evolutionary biologists rejected genetic drift for any kind of evolution. Again, genetic drift means small and isolated but those populations have to mate with their close relative and produced homozygous organisms. Homozygous organisms have low fecundity, suffer from various diseases, least fitted to survive and may extinct suddenly, e.g. American Heath hen. Thus, small populations and isolated populations (i.e. genetic drift) are opposite to any kind of evolution, even risk for extinction. However, genetic drift is also the key force of Neutral theory, which works in smalls and isolated populations. Consequently, Neutral theory is opposite to any kind of evolution. So, many evolutionary biologists rejected Neutral theory. Once more, evolutionary biologists rejected the shifting balance theory, the punctuated equilibrium theory and of Goldschmidt’s theory. Gould and Wright advocated chromosomal speciation (chromosome rearrangements) theory for macroevolution but which are not valid. Moreover, extinction is the main process of the macroevolution, which is quite absurd. The fossil is the excellent and only evidence of those theories of macroevolution. But fossil completely opposes macroevolution. So, those seven non-Darwinian theories are opposite to any kind of evolution. Consequently, the Darwinists, the neo-Darwinists and the Sociobiology’s oppose those non-Darwinian. Subsequently, plants and animals including human are not evolved via those theories.

https://www.entomoljournal.com/archives/2020/vol8issue5/PartQ/6-5-287-258.pdf

Seven non-darwinian theories opposite to evolution

Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a mixture of Lyell’s theory and Malthus’s theory and Darwin used wrong Lamarck’s theory, theme of sociologist Herbert Spencer ‘survival of the fittest’ plus believes as the mechanism of evolution. Evidences are provided form his paper 1858, ‘Origin of Species’ and ‘Descent of Man’ his autobiography and different text books. Diverse literatures showed that Lyell declared in ‘Principle of Geology’ that the earth was evolved from the simple to the modern stage by slow and gradual (he utilized gradual 170 times) process by natural forces during millions of years. Darwin applied this view to natural selection. But he used ‘living organisms’ in lieu of the ‘earth surface’ and confirmed that all the living organisms evolved by slow and gradual process from a few previous simple organisms over millions of years. Furthermore, Darwin used Lyell’s name and his idea gradual 27 times in ‘Origin of Species’ and 9 times in ‘Descent of Man’. Malthus argued in ‘Principle of population’ geometrical increasing of human population and confirmed that as many more individuals are born can possibly survive. So, there is often struggle for existence and competition is compulsory. Darwin adopted this idea in his theory of natural selection but he used ‘all living organisms’ instead of ‘Human’. Additionally, Darwin applied Malthus thought geometrical increase 11 times, struggle 84 times, existence 69 and competition 44 times in ‘Origin of Species’. Thus, Darwin synthesized natural selection by the mixture of Malthus theory and Lyell’s theory in 1889. Moreover, he applied wrong Lamarck’s theory disuse 41 places in ‘Origin of Species’ and 15 places in ‘Descent of Man’. He acknowledged that principles of natural selection is shadowed of forth principles of Lamarck and the problem of human evolution can never be solved by science. Man is considered with other some ancient, lower, and extinct form, Lamarck long ago came to this conclusion. Six classical World renowned persons (Darwin, Wallace, Malthus, Lyell, Lamarck and Spencer) direct related to development of ‘natural selection’ (Origin Species and Descent of Man) but four persons are academically nonscientist (Darwin, Malthus, Lyell and Spencer) even two main persons are academically clergyman man (Darwin and Malthus). Even, Darwin applied unscientific idea ‘I believe’ and similar theme 372 times in ‘Origin of Species’ and 264 times in ‘Descent of Man’. However, believe is not science as believe in God is not science.

/pdf/darwin-s-theory-is-the-mixture-of-malthus-s-theory-and-lyell-1pvn3dkszs.pdf

Darwin's theory is the mixture of Malthus's theory and Lyell's theory and Darwin use wrong Lamarck's theory as well as believe as a mechanism of evolution

The objectives of this article are that to prove punctuated equilibrium theory represents shifting balance theory and these two theories declared invalid Darwin’s theory and Neo-Darwinian theory and those are true fact: Because all features of both theories are same- i) Genetic drift play the key role of both theories. ii) Both theories advocated evolution progresses rapidly in a small and isolated population with rapid evolution after long period of stasis without the help of Darwin’s theory. iii) Both theories advocated allopatric speciation, macroevolution, quantum evolution and species selection. iv) Fossil is the only evidence of both theories. Additionally, those theories declared invalid Darwin’s theory and Neo-Darwinian theory. As a result, if anyone proves that genetic drift unable to produce new species or rejected shifting balance theory and fossil does not support macroevolution but support gradual evolution; then punctuated equilibrium theory even allopatric speciation theory would be invalid automatically.

https://www.entomoljournal.com/archives/2017/vol5issue3/PartA/5-2-111-682.pdf

Mathias Kluge

Papers

Human Evolution An Introduction To The New Physical Anthropology