Monday, December 16, 2013

Gods, Genes, Conscience: December Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience ( worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here ( Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in December 2013, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Gods, Genes, Conscience: September Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience ( worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here ( Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in September 2013, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!

  • [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 7 years or so. Meanwhile, my "old" entry page has just (since October 1, 2012) been phased out; after which time, I shall try to continue posting my future dialogues URL links, by using one of my local library internet browsers, which I think will be compatible to these "new" Blogger entry pages!? Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.]
  • 1) Opinion: A Diverse Perspective -- RE: Reductionism vs. Holism in Modern Biology and History: Neo-Darwinism vs. Genetics and Physiology!? (TheScientistCAN; September 1) -- Wherein under my 5-point Commentary couldn't be all posted, using my old and a library browser, so I shall post my comments en masse herein under:
RE: Reductionism vs. Holism in Modern Biology and History: Neo-Darwinism vs. Genetics and Physiology*!?

1] I thought the American cell biologist, embryologist EE Just’s (1883-1941) correct view on the “nuclear-cytoplasm” interactive physiology, might have had come from his holistic view and perception (or his scientifically-trained view and conception) of “cells and organelles” theories, theories that soon began to empirically define and refine our Modern Biology in the early 20th century (see the “modern cell theory” in Comment 2 below); and not originated from his culturally-unique life experiences per se, as an African American intellectual, that has had been broadly characterized in the nice but brief article above!? -- As socio-intellectually, when having the opportunity of revisiting or reviewing any (active, retired, or deceased) scientist’s works and ideas, we (readers-reviewers including practical scientists, historians, philosophers, and critics alike) must do science* a justice: by objectively scrutinizing and focusing on the merits, datasets, facts, methods, concepts, novelty, and practicality (but not coaxed controversies or sensationalism that may be subliminally or hubristically infused with certain undisclosed personal ideologies, egotism, and/or scientism) of the scientific works under review: reviewing strictly within each work’s scientific and historical context and process, despite the scientist’s cultural background, such as, the ethnicity, subjective ideology, or gender issues; issues that have had been too often and invariably infused and abused by the many culturally-biased ideologues, pseudoscience sensationalists, positivists, and sophists alike, in the past and present; just as in the ongoing case of “Neo-Darwinism vs. Genetics and Physiology” issues* that are being reviewed, scrutinized, and commented herein under:

2] Specifically and philoscientifically, in 1837, there were 2 contrasting but equally defining biological theories (ie, biomorphism vs. cell physiology) that had had been independently hatched out in Europe: one the “evolutionary transformism” theory of organisms -- or the naturalism of “geo-biomorphism” theory that would be labored and elaborated from a global, monumental, and phenomenal naturalist works or the macro view and gross descriptions, explanations, and extrapolations in the 19th-century naturalism, anamorphism, and of the philoscientific positivist reductionism in animal and plant biomorphism, transmutation, paleontology, geology, geography, taxonomy of plants and animals by their observed appearance and assumed evolutionary transformism and transmutations in fossils and in life specimens; and by observations of their domestication and husbandry propagation and their observed characteristics and traits selection-model systems of the time -- especially observed by the young, keen British, inquisitive, aspiring geologist, philoscientific naturalist (not a specialist in cells, organelles, anatomy, physiology, or embryology of the time) Charles Darwin (1809-82): the only Darwin who would later publish his naturalist global view of organisms or his macro “geogenic” evolutionary transformative (not “genetic” germline or gamete developmental; see Comments 4 & 5 below) per gross “natural phenomenology” or his naturalist speculations and articulations of the “geo-bio” origins, propagations, trait-selections, trait-mutations, reproductions, survival adaptations, and transformations of organisms on Earth: in a grand masterpiece treatise that he would entitle “On the Origin of Species” in 1859; laying out thereof and therein his naturalist and selectionist foundation (modeled on domestication and husbandry breeding propagation-selection processes) for the modern interpretations and reinterpretations of “evolution” of the organisms on Earth; and subsequently for the evermore competitive hermeneutics of “evolutionism vs creationism” debates of our life-origins and species-creations (including the natural philoscientific, positivist, evolutionist, sophist, reductionist, religionist, intelligent design-creationist, etc) ever since (see my 2011 comments therein under and more below)!?

And: two the “developmental cell” theory -- the thesis that was derived from the increasingly-detailed observations and physiology of both animal and plant cells (including their organelles) as the basic and functional units of organisms of the time or the inquired holism in both the developmental and growth cell biology and physiology -- by the 2 students of Johannes Peter Muller (1801-58) at Berlin’s Humboldt University; and, the duo modern cell theorists (not evolutionists nor reductionists) were identified as the botanist Matthias Schleiden (1804-81) and the animal physiologist Theodor Schwann (1810-82) as recently reported by Kate Yandell in “The Scientist” therein (August 1, 2013)!?

3] As such, socio-intellectually, philoscientifically, and pedagogically, it was no surprise that Just’s professional training and pursuits, might have had inquired, acquired, focused, and adopted the then preeminent “developmental and growth” cellular physiology and embryology, among the holism in the practical scientific inquiry, methods, and empiricism of the continental Europe of his time -- while not been seduced, bemused, sidetracked, confused, short-sighted, or corrupted by the then equally preeminent naturalist, positivist, selectionist reductionism in biomorphism or “evolutionist biology” namely the neo-Darwinism that had had been brewing since the passing of Darwin in England (1882): As after which time, the 1859 Darwinism of the “natural selection” (NS) explanation of evolution or the NS as a “metaphor” that may be akin to the Scottish economist Adam Smith’s (1723-90) “invisible hand” epiphenomena in socioeconomics (or the NS “invisible forces” in “Darwinian NS orthodoxy” of otherwise philoscientific Naturalism, the NS orthodoxy that would later be further infused subliminally and/or hubristically -- but not empirically -- by the varied positivist, reductionist, and/or selectionist imaginations: in and of their gross evolutionist narratives or rhetoric; selectionist explanatory analogies and assertions; reductionist complacencies and pseudoscience expediencies; etc) had had since been morphed (or literally extrapolated and reductively transformed) into his cousin Sir Francis Galton’s (1822-1911) per pseudogenetic selectionist “eugenics” theory (as brilliantly and radiantly laid out in Galton’s 1883 book “Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development”); and which had had further been morphed into the subsequent neo-Darwinist, evolutionist, pseudoscience of the Modern Synthesis (MS) doctrine -- or the “evolutionism” synthesis manifesto, the reductionist proclamation that was basically concocted by the then prevailing pseudogenetic selectionist, positivist, evolutionist, and eugenicist mutually-coaxed consensus and declaration (but not by any substantiated scientific empiricism at all) in the 1930s-40s -- and this neo-Darwinist evolutionism (including the 1960s-70s MS inspired, spawned, and parasitic “biologism” and “geneticism” which turning thus otherwise the prototypic “philoscientific Darwinism” into its penultimate “evolutionist, positivist, and reductionist Scientism”) that I have had been consistently and persistently refuting ever since the post-genomics era of today and beyond worldwide!?

4] Whereas -- also trained as an embryologist and biologist -- the 1933 Nobel laureate, geneticist Thomas Morgan (1866-1945) had had consistently advanced and contributed his works and ideas in the field of genetics* -- pioneering by using “fruit flies” as an organism model-system (experimenting and focusing genetics* at the “germline” chromosomal level) -- while uprightly refuting the pseudoscience of eugenics (or neo-Darwinism cum Galtonism of his time) that had had been soon widely propagated since the early 20th century until its dissolution in the late 1960s: a pseudogenetic selectionist history which was all too well documented in the publications of “The Eugenics Review” (from 1909 to 1968) by the Galton Institute in UK!?

Meanwhile, please note that the field of genetics* was initiated and founded -- by using “peas plants” as a germline (from seed to plant phenotype or trait-expression and experimentation) or “heredity propagation and hybridization” model-system in the mid-1800s in continental Europe -- by the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel (1822-84): the pioneering experimentalist in “proto-genetics” who had had previously and formally trained in the continental scientific inquiry and holism inquiry traditions in mathematics, physics, natural sciences, botany, etc; especially in the developmental and growth “germline heredity” theory and the empirical application and practice of the statistical methods thereof and thereon (in biology and genetics*); the statistical methods that were absolutely not inquired, acquired, trained, nor empirically required or tested by the then aspiring philoscientific naturalist Darwin and his like-minded contemporaries at all in England of his time (see how Darwin derived his philoscientific theory of “evolution” in my Comment 2 above); nor had had the concept of the germline inheritance or genetics* been (even today) fully (or holistically) acquired, appreciated, nor comprehended, or critically inquired by his subsequent pseudogenetic evolutionist, reductionist, selectionist, evolutionary-parasitic followers and worshippers alike, namely the neo-Darwinists of the late 19th - 20th centuries past; even today and beyond (see also John Edser’s comments on neo-Darwinism to that effect and affect since the 1960s-70s above -- from “Opinion: A Diverse Perspective” therein under; July 29, 2013)!?

5] In retrospect -- contrary to the recently excellent works (of genomics and epigenomics) as advanced by the ENCODE project, duly observed above and elsewhere worldwide -- the MS neo-Darwinism had had indeed irreparably recapitulated, precipitated, and perpetuated the 1883 Galtonian pseudogenetic selectionist, evolutionist, reductionist, and eugenicist notion of a pseudoscientific status quo or rhetoric (eg, phrenology; Galtonism or heredity of "intelligence" or "geniuses"; psychometrics; biologism or biologization of "altruism"; geneticism or anthropomorphism of "gene" and "meme"; etc; see more discussions below) in our modern history and biology: the pseudogenetic evolutionist dogma that had had replaced the Galtonian failed extrapolations of the NS theory in their reformulation that the 1900 rediscovery of the 1865 Mendelian genetics, must “constitute, fit, and fulfill” the “evolutionary (transformism) mechanisms” that had had been “missed” in the 1859 Darwin’s NS thesis; thus the MS neo-Darwinism was indeed rhetorically transformed and reductively synthesized so as to complement and extend Darwin’s NS theory as the then prevalently neo-Darwinists and evolutionists who might have had interpreted it as a fit and fix: in a sleight of hand or a sneakily "robbing Peter (or Mendel) to pay Paul (or Darwin)" synergism of sophistry and their pseudogenetic selectionist and determinist penmanship or in the MS evolutionists critical scientific and ethical lapses: 1) by rhetorically, irreversibly or unilaterally a positivist patching up of the NS missed “conceptual, empirical, and practical” deficiencies (or the NS orthodoxy) with the empirically-verified Mendelian “germline” concept or foundational genetics (not evolutionary transformative biomorphism; see my Comment 2 above) per “developmental and growth mechanisms” as their newfound or reformulated “evolutionist mechanisms” in their MS neo-Darwinist evolutionism doctrine or dogma (since the 1930s-40s in England: claiming as if Darwinism had predicted the Mendelian germline genetics, genetics that the NS thesis had had conceptually and empirically missed nor anticipated during Darwin’s life time; see my Comments 2-4 above); and 2) by conveniently or consistently and persistently per amnesic negating of the historical and pseudoscientific facts that the pseudogenetic selectionist, reductionist, and determinist flawed extrapolations or extensions of the NS rhetoric or metaphors, had had indeed misled the British super-elitist, polymath Galton to pursue and advocate his 1883 superstitiously-formulated selectionist “eugenics” theory (and fallacies); and subsequently the neo-Darwinism cum Galtonism had also spread and emboldened the Aryan supremacists, the Nazis, the Third Reich to justify, simulate, and pursue their own eugenicist 1933-45 Holocaust policies and campaigns before and during World War II (1939-45) in Europe (see how the NS theory had had been morphed into the eugenics theory in my Comments 3 & 4 above and more below)!?

Furthermore, the MS neo-Darwinist dogma had had even been morphed, saturated, and punctuated in the currently world-renowned pseudogenetic determinist, super-egotist, the proud (hubristic) reductionist in biology and in "Darwinian ideology" (since the neo-Darwinists and sophists mutually and insistently coaxing to reductively extrapolate the 1859 Darwin's NS orthodoxy into the "evolution of everything else without empiricism but rhetoric" in the Universe above and beyond, while their willfully denying of any conceptions or existential and essential evolution of the human mind* and emotions* within at all and the humanities* worldwide) and the prolific pseudoscience writer** and the exceptionally gifted sensationalist** in his "evolutionary rhetoric" or evolutionism** and in "ideo-bio reductionist-selectionist" polemics Richard Dawkins’ book “The Selfish Gene” and in its frivolously loaded hopping and replicating “gene” and “meme” syntheses, metaphors, rhetoric, semantics, and fallacies since 1976** -- or to be more exact: the neo-Darwinists and their parasitic sophists have had indeed committed themselves to their philoscientific ineptitude and multitude of fallacies in their supercilious evolutionist, positivist pseudoscientific and pseudogenetic irreproachability, irretractability, irreparability, nor testability, nor accountability in their evolutionism since the late 19th century; let alone their concurrently evermore devoid of self-scrutinizing of their own evolutionist theoretical works and dogmas, and/or self-disciplining of their irrationally contracted pseudoscience hubris and scientism* (rooted ideologically rhetorically in their positivism, reductionism, eugenicism or Galtonism; reformulated by co-opting Mendelian germline genetics into Darwinism as their now MS neo-Darwinism*; and further parasitically extended into the 1960s-70s biologism and geneticism alike), in our now evermore advanced and specialized fields of practical science and philosophy inquiries and pursuits, today and beyond, worldwide!?

Thus having committed themselves to persistently and blindly idolize and synonymize Darwinism as “evolutionary biology” (including biologism, geneticism, etc) or insisting neo-Darwinism as a science* argument that the MS neo-Darwinism can “selectively, effectively, and sufficiently” explain “everything” on Earth nowadays, the evolutionary neo-Darwinists are in fact increasingly relegating the 19th-century great naturalist’s grand philoscientific masterpiece treatise to the dustbin of their now evermore evolved, transformed, malignantly rhetorical, pseudogenetic selectionist, determinist, evolutionist metaphors, fantasies, fallacies, pseudoscience, and scientism* literature worldwide (see “A Metaphor Too Far” and my 2011 comment therein under)!? -- All of Darwin’s works and ideas would have had remained under the utterly neo-Darwinist pseudoscience wraps and dogmas: forever fossilized, unscrutinizable, unchallengeable, unfalsifiable; and wasted big time, especially in the name of our concurrent neo-Darwinist scientism* and its evolutionary rhetoric, dogma, semantics, and wordplays since the mid 20th century (see also the world-renowned and parasitic neo-Darwinist-biased psycholinguist Steven Pinker’s confused defense of “scientism” instead of “science” in our concurrently practical science-philosophy and existential humanity issues, inquiries, and debates worldwide therein -- TheNewRepublicUSA; August 6, 2013 -- a disappointing read*** indeed, caveat lector)!?

*Footnote: See my comments on “Neo-Darwinism vs. Genetics and Psychiatry” issues therein under (PsychiatricTimesUSA; June 3, 2010)!? And on "Neo-Darwinism vs. Psychiatry and Anthropology” issues therein under (PsychiatricTimesUSA; January 17, 2011)!?

**Dawkinsism: See Richard Dawkins' latest self-aggrandizing and reflexive memoir "An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist" -- whose subtitle I thought should have had been more appropriately reflected and entitled "The Making of a Great Pseudoscience Writer (since 1976)"!? -- See also how “The Selfish Gene” (1976) pseudogenetic determinism has had been deftly deconstructed or debunked by the science journalist David Dobbs therein (AeonUK; December 3, 2013); and how Dawkinsism has had been morphed into a New Scientistic Atheism here: “New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn in the Atheism Movement” by the evolutionary biologist turned philosopher Massimo Pigliucci [Midwest Studies In PhilosophyUSA, XXXVII (2013)]; and a more serious critique of “Scientism in the Arts and Humanities” by the British sociocultural critic and philosopher Roger Scruton therein (TheNewAtlantisUSA; Fall 2013). And last, but not least, Dawkins has just finished the part II of his self-aggrandizing memoir “Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science” (see a fair but short review by Nathaniel Comfort therein: NatureUK; September 9, 2015).
-- Time and again, Dawkins’ latest aggrandizing reflexive autobiography should have had been more appropriately summarized and entitled “A Brief Candle Extinguished by The Selfish Gene, Meme: How My Life is Imbued with Reanimated Neo-Darwinism Rhetorics, Misinterpretations, Jargons, the Galtonian Ego-centric Elitist, Positivist, Reductionist, Selectionist Eugenics Scientism Fantasies (1883) being All too Eagerly Anthropomorphized, Naturalized, Sensationalized, and Propagandized as Gene-centric Determinist Self-replicating Geneticism Pseudoscience, Meme Narrative (since 1976); And I Still Have No Clues as How to Get Out of, or Correct, It; Instead I Have been Piling Higher, Deeper of It -- Self-deceitfully Reviving, Cocooning in, Rocking and Rolling with It, Of course, For My Unsuspecting Undeterred Fandom, Readership, Worldwide”!? -- See my in-depth comments on the controversy therein: under an-expert-roundtable on The Selfish Gene “Dead or Alive?” (AeonUK; March 11, 2014).

***Pinker's scientism: One which was recently clear-mindedly refuted by the TNR literary editor Leon Wieseltier therein (TheNewRepublicUSA; September 3, 2013) -- and subsequently the typically-confused Pinker vs the more enlightened Wieseltier debate on the subject matters of "science vs the humanities" ensues thereof and therein (TheNewRepublicUSA; September 26, 2013); and Pinker’s scientism was further chastised by the British psychiatrist-philosopher Iain McGilchrist herein (September 25, 2013)!?

Best wishes, Mong 9/8/13usct3:31p; practical science-philosophy critic; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse; 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now (blogging avidly since 2006).

Monday, July 15, 2013

Gods, Genes, Conscience: July Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience ( worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here ( Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in July 2013, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Gods, Genes, Conscience: April Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience ( worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here ( Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in April 2013, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!

  • [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 7 years or so. Meanwhile, my "old" entry page has just (since October 1, 2012) been phased out; after which time, I shall try to continue posting my future dialogues URL links, by using one of my local library internet browsers, which I think will be compatible to these "new" Blogger entry pages!? Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.]
  • 1) Making Cancer More Transparent -- RE: Making Cancer more "transparent" and "defined"!? (TheScientistCAN; April 25)

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Gods, Genes, Conscience: January Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience ( worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here ( Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in January 2013, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!

Subject: The Foundational Biology Debate of the Centuries: Darwinism vs. neo-Darwinism: Where it went wrong -- and -- Why neo-Darwinists are resisting self-correction -- nor retraction -- in their inherently flawed “evolutionist cum reductionist” pseudoscience thinking: while insisting on transgressing and misleading all fields of inquiry with and by their so-called “evolutionary” rhetoric -- the Modern Synthesis of neo-Darwinism unverifiable by practical empiricism (since the 1930s-40s) -- by their discretionary and arbitrary superimposing of Darwinism (1859) over Mendelism (1866) synthesis, as their newfound “natural selectionist” dictum of Modern Genetics -- the “pseudo-genetic” dictate that has since morphed into their so-called “biogenetic reductionist” fallacy of the day -- a tour de force of neo-Darwinist pseudoscience rhetoric and pursuit, as “Evolutionary Biology” of today -- since the 1960s-70s!?

Preamble: The following response to an article that I read via The Evolution & Medicine Review above, addresses the case in point of my recently critical review of the “Darwinism* vs. neo-Darwinism*” issues and rhetoric since 2009: especially after a time of much celebration and reflection on Darwin’s 200th birthday; and on his voluminous naturalist cum geologist works, that I soon began to voice, warn, and refute the multi-generations of neo-Darwinists, biogenetic reductionists and sophists alike -- and -- their very biased tendency to proliferate, dictate, and corrupt all fields of Biology* and Humanity* inquiries, by their then (since) 1940s-synthesized “natural selectionist” pseudoscientific “evolutionary” rhetoric and pursuits, including their continued and chronic attempts to misdirect, and corrode, our concurrently practical Biomedicine* and Psychiatry* research and development principles and practice, that I recently observed here: “Do We Need “Evolutionary Medicine”? -- RE: Science-based Medicine vs Evolutionary (neo-Darwinist) Medicine!?” (SciencebasedMedicineUSA; August 4, 2012) and here: “The Evolutionary Calculus of Depression -- RE: Let's not dictate Psychiatry by neo-Darwinism -- Evolutionary geneticism vs. Clinical diagnosis, alleviation, of Depression (distresses mental, spiritual, or otherwise)!?" (PsychiatricTimesUSA; June 3, 2010)!

[*By modern (or “philoscientific” since 1859 Darwin’s) definition, these “science and philosophy” issues -- including “pseudoscience” as in the case of “neo-Darwinism vs. Mendelism” issues -- must be openly queried, pursued, and advanced with and by the following perspectives: the perspectives which may echo those of Einstein’s relativistic “science and religion” issues (1941) that “science without philosophy is lame” (lamed in its physico-reductionist misinterpreting of our “life and mind” or “humanity” issues) and “philosophy without science (or empiricism) is blind” (blinded by its own hubris of metaphysics, metaphysics which has no practical basis in “reality” at all)! Thus, both the disciplines of “science and philosophy” (including theology, religions, etc) must walk and work together -- continually querying each other -- so as to mutually understand and advance our common human destinies -- great or trivial; good or evil; large or small; etc -- all too common a frailty in and of our very own human conditions, and human endeavors, on this unique planet Earth: especially since our common human ancestors had begun to roam on Earth, over 50 thousand years ago!?]

At Readers convenience, please peruse and scrutinize my comments and response (as reposted en masse) below:

RE: Let’s not mislead “Cancer Research and Treatment” principles by the “evolutionary” (or neo-Darwinist) rhetoric (or positivist Scientism): The “biogenetic reductionist” cum “fad/bad-science evolutionist” thinking and pursuits of the 19th-20th centuries past; and wasted, big time!? -- Or, How the evolutionist “neo-Darwinism” has (had) corrupted, confused, and corroded our “multi-generations” of otherwise aspiring, critical, scientific, practical, biomedical research and development (R&D) inquiry Minds, especially in our “Modern Oncology” and “Anticancer Biotherapeutic” R&D pursuits and practice today and beyond; since the Father of Medicine, the Greek physician (or the antiquity, prototypical, practical, medical scientist, philosopher, healer) Hippocrates (460-377 BCE)!?

Now, let’s fast forward to the 17th-century Europe: Since the Scientific Revolution (or SR; especially revolutions in our natural materialism and logical rationalism, so as to set free and delineate our then aspiring scientific thinking and methodological empiricism -- from -- the then intellectually-stale religionism, traditionalism, spiritualism, literary rhetoric, wordplays, superstitions, etc), “physico-reductionism” (or PR) -- a primary form of our logical (but basically reductive) rationalism, especially arising in and from our then gradually-aspiring “disciplines” of prototypical “practical STEM” (or pSTEM: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; which would later extend and expand our PR thinking, active and creative empiricism, into biophysics, chemistry, quantum physics, astrophysics, biochemistry, nanotechnology, etc) -- has become a powerful and increasingly-reductive and incisive tool of inquiry and inference, indeed; especially in and for our identifying, analyzing, and defining any (or all) of our observable, detectable, and conceivable matters or physical entities on Earth: including (almost) all of their inter-relational, practical, theoretical, conceivable, and calculable principles, their interrelating and/or governing rules, in and within our existing physical (or objectively-definable) World; whereby our concurrently-knowable World, has (had) since (especially since the turn of the 20th century and World War II thereafter) been increasingly expanded and extrapolated -- with our thus inquired and acquired vision, wisdom, memory, and experience (or VWME; wherein our “subjective” experience of “inner” emotion could, and would, never be defined, reduced, confined, denied, nor dictated by our primarily “materialist” PR thinking) -- into the evermore empirically-expandable, detectable, observable, testable, and measurable Universe above and beyond!

And, whereby all of our thus far acquired universally “objective” VWME have had been empirically-tested, measured, conceived, standardized, perceived, and established by our now evermore precise pSTEM methodologies, theories, and empiricism -- all been verified consistently, persistently, and progressively inquired, pursued, achieved, and advanced since, and by, the 17th-century practicality-based and reality-driven SR in Europe, of course!

1] Whereas in the 21st century or the Genomics-era nowadays, by insisting or attempting to extrapolate our materialist-positivist PR thinking (evermore subjectively, deeply, rhetorically; uncritically, nor scientifically) into other fields of our “inner” VWME inquiry (subjective, imaginative, metaphysical, spiritual, religious, consciousness, or otherwise) such as our “non-physical” survival issues, or our social and “personhood” sciences, arts, and humanity issues -- issues which would also entail our evermore active, interactive, and creative psychology, sociology, biomedicine, religion, epistemology, etc -- wherein our materialist PR thinking and pursuits, have (had) been proven to be (uncritically, uncharacteristically, nor scientifically) prudent, inadequate, inept, and/or even intellectually futile: wherein our PR has (had) been absolutely non-productive, counterintuitive, nor even creative or constructive, at all -- being nothing more than robots running on algorithms while without any intellectual nor emotional inputs or outputs, at all -- and especially entailed in and for our social and individual life’s millennia-old (since the antiquity) inquiries and pursuits of our inner spontaneity of emotionalism, spiritualism, existentialism, epistemology, etc; especially punctuated at a time when and thereafter the publication of the great British naturalist cum geologist Charles Darwin’s (1809-82) “while prototypically-revolutionary in his ‘geo-biomorphism’ thinking of life issues: an attempt to relate ‘biogenesis’ to and with ‘geogenesis’ issues; ‘biodiversity with geography’; and ‘geo-bio-eco’ integration, isolation, and diversification issues, progresses, theories, etc; and that his account of Nature had had at once become an influential (but yet to be empirically-verified) Victorian literary masterpiece -- especially on Darwin’s then aspiring and budding Natural Phenomenology or Naturalism* since the British (‘philo-scientific’) Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution thereafter -- and that his masterly Naturalism* had had also become one of the then most intellectually-stimulating -- both riveting and pivotal -- philoscientifically-pathbreaking and nuance ‘geo-bio-eco’ phenomenologically-trailblazing treatises” titled “On the Origin of Species” (OOS or Darwinism*) in 1859!

[*Darwinism discussed herein under is strictly inferred to Darwin’s Naturalism that was schematically argued in OOS (both prototypically-scientific and phenomenological; fully titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”) wherein Darwin specifically concluded and professed phenomenologically and philoscientifically that “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

[*Whereas these Darwin’s original -- but “empirically-unspecified” albeit observable, describable, imaginable, and arguably-explanatory -- “powers”, or the unspecified “organic heredity mechanisms” of survival “fitness” issues (in lifeforms or organisms on Earth) have (had) since been literally-interpreted, uncritically-absorbed, admired, recited, and consistently-worshiped by his then followers, readers, admirers and worshippers alike -- or the now so-called “neo-Darwinists” or the materialist-positivist PR biased syndrome of “scientism” -- as their newfound “evolutionary principles” or “evolutionism” by natural selection (NS) thesis: the neo-Darwinist biased syndrome that has (had) turned the great naturalist’s “narrative schema into an evolutionist ‘bio-ideo’ fitness dogma” -- one that “insists” that organisms (including humans) should do well to find the “fittest” mates, so as to pass on their best “genes” or “traits” [both physical (or bio) and behavioral (or ideo) in (human) nature] to their offspring -- as their thus subscribed descriptive or explanatory “mechanism” or “kin selectionism” notion of the NS theory; and as their now extended rhetoric of the “bio-ideo” fitness dogma or “geneticism” while without substantiating with, or by, any material, practical, scientific, and/or empirical tests nor supports, at all; even nowadays (see more discussions below; especially the doubly-asterisked [**] footnote in Comment 4, and the triply-asterisked [***] footnote in Comment 5 below)!?]

2] On the surface of this neo-Darwinist biased syndrome, and very extraordinarily, Darwinism has (had) since 1859 been uncritically and ideologically worshiped as the Genius of the great naturalist’s “explanatory” or “descriptive” positivism or scientism of “Evolution by NS” fitness rhetoric and debate, worldwide (see the asterisked [*] footnote in Comment 1 above); whereby the “bio-ideo” evolutionists or the neo-Darwinists have (had) since been taking the NS “theory” for granted (in a superficial way) as a “fact” (both describable and explainable rhetoric of fact) as their thus subsumed, interpreted, absorbed, extended, and inherited “evolutionism” by NS fitness thesis and synthesis folly: turning the naturalist’s many a “nuance narrative into an evolutionist ‘bio-ideo’ fitness nuisance” fallacy in their now renowned neo-Darwinist, evolutionist, reductionist fitness “evolutionism” scholarship and debate, worldwide; extending further their “evolutionism” dogma into the materialist-positivist “scientism”: the socio-ideological doctrine that was first advanced by the French mathematician and philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857) as the founder of “positivism” -- a strong form of our PR thinking, or the system of Comte’s logical rationalism, which was formulated so as to supersede theology and metaphysics and depending on a hierarchy of the then aspiring sciences, beginning with mathematics and culminating in sociology; all pursued by his then socio-ideological reductionism or Comtism and the materialist biased scientism alike, of course!?

Consequently, the 19th-century Comtism may now be categorically characterized as a “socio-ideological scientism” as well -- especially by the 20th-century advent of “neo-Darwinism” or the natural materialist “evolutionism” fitness rhetoric and its subsequent evolutionist-materialist-positivist “scientism” nowadays -- whereby an otherwise “open-ended” phenomenological NS “theory” of Darwinism (or the great naturalist’s “proposed” Geological and Geographical Phenomenology of the Origin of Species on Earth) has (had) been extended into a natural “evolutionism-scientism” PR continuum, or the so-called neo-Darwinist biogenetic fitness dogma of “kin selectionism” or the “bio-ideo” reductionist geneticism and the evolutionist-positivist “socio-ideological scientism” fallacies: whereby they all have (had) extrapolated the “geo-bio-eco” Darwinism -- as their now “bio-ideo” evolutionist neo-Darwinism -- into “anything and everything” in and within our Universe above and beyond -- even into our “inner” VWME inquiries and properties (whether physical or metaphysical in nature) -- as long as the “origins” of these “entities and/or properties” (whether empirically-derived; or purely-fantasized, imagined, or otherwise) could be (rhetorically, subjectively, reductively, anthropomorphically, or selectively) fitted, subsumed, applied, explained, described, subscribed, and proclaimed as being naturally “Darwinian” or “evolutionary” in and by their now preconceived (or PR-driven) Darwinian fitness fallacies of “kin selectionism”, “evolutionism”, “geneticism” and “scientism” alike -- as their now proclaimed “evolutionary first principles”, while without providing any testable “bio-ideo” empirical testimonials (not rhetoric), nor supports, at all -- especially in and for our evermore active, interactive, multidisciplinary, comprehensive, and practical “science and philosophy” inquiries and debate, nowadays!?

In this “bio-ideo” PR thinking (of philosophical ineptitude, beyond any scientific reproach, and intellectual sterility) respect: please see one of the most (subjectively and reductively) anthropomorphized, neo-Darwinist, biogenetic reductionist, evolutionist-positivist “gene-centric” or the bio-ideologue of “eugenics reanimated as anthropomorphism” pseudo-genetic evolutionist-reductionist folly (or “geneticism” in one of the mostly “beyond reproach” in its extremism, in PR thinking, self-criticism, self-correction, or self-retraction, pseudoscience turned fad/bad science) books, by the world renowned neo-Darwinist, biogenetic reductionist, evolutionist, atheist and prolific writer Richard Dawkins, titled “The Selfish Gene” (1976)!? -- [See also another Dawkins’ mostly anti-theism and sophistry of evolutionism and scientism issues (as yet another “beyond reproach” atheism turned fad/bad science) book, titled “The God Delusion” (2006); in it, he has had attempted to resuscitate the 19th-century positivist anti-spiritualism past, in railing against the millennia-old spiritual philosophy of the “Origin/Evolution of Theology” (or the “monotheism” VWME thesis and synthesis issues) or the millennia-old “descriptive creationism” in “The Book of Genesis” -- a “subjective” matter of religious supernaturalism, spiritualism, psychology, or religionism, that Darwin had had (wisely and conscientiously) distinguished himself from, and for, Not intellectualizing, Nor extrapolating (while without any empiricism, at all) in OOS (by his “descriptive” NS theory): Neither in his philoscientific transgressions, Nor at his intellectual discretions (see the doubly-asterisked [**] footnote in Comment 4 below)!?]

3] Furthermore, Darwinism has (had) also since 1859 been widely and critically reviewed and revisited worldwide (by the evermore aspiring, erudite, practical scientists and philosophers alike, of course); and OOS had since retained and come to epitomize Darwin’s then ingenious “geo-bio” transformationism and transmutationism thinking or anamorphism -- one theory which would later be dubbed “macroevolutionism” by the 20th-century neo-creationists and practical science-philosophy critics alike -- or metamorphism of all lifeforms on Earth (including those observed in fossils) as Darwin’s then deeply and globally intuited philoscientific thinking -- being creatively in action, critically in “geo-bio” transformation, and intellectually in formalization; circa 1837-1859 -- whereby his then philoscientific Naturalism or Natural Phenomenology of species on Earth (see the asterisked [*] footnote in Comment 1 above) had had since begun to emerge, congeal, formulate, and formalize in, and with, all of his then acquired global observations and taxonomies of organisms, into a grand nuance narrative (or the great naturalist cum geologist bird’s eye view) of the “geo-bio-eco” inter-relationally active, creative, and progressive history of “evolution” on Earth -- particularly in a “branching tree of species” configuration, multiplication, diversification, and propagation processes and progresses in Nature -- that might have had existed, persisted, and evolved with, and along, the then newly-identified and formalized metamorphism or Stratigraphy of the Earth’s natural history; or the then explored, surveyed, and categorized Geology and Geography, whereby all lifeforms on Earth might have had been living, surviving, and propagating by, and with, their varied (but yet to be empirically-specified) “powers” or “mechanisms of progresses” that could be observed and described by a myriad of livelihood and survival definitions and explanations: including “adaptation”, “competition”, “modification”, “diversification“, “variation”, “reproduction”, etc and so much more of the then observable biological phenomena, survival characteristics and traits; especially in a naturally-progressive way and means, that Darwin would later encapsulate it, in a prototypically-revolutionary and bird’s eye view or philoscientific term of NS, in 1859!?

As such, Darwin’s proposed (but not yet empirically-defined) “powers” of NS narrative had since (seamlessly and progressively) threaded and come to exemplify and signify his then overall Natural Phenomenology, or the masterly philoscientific Naturalism, that Darwin had had then observed, learned, formalized, and described: especially in and by a myriad of specimen traits and characteristics (that were also observable in the “geo-bio” anamorphism fossils and life species on Earth) that might still be recognizable and identifiable in and from their related life specimens and fossils alike, such as those (accountably and scientifically) classified in their each respective taxonomies of the time; whereby these lifeforms might have had been “breathed” (as Darwin metaphorically put it; see the asterisked [*] footnote in Comment 1 above), originated, evolved, and thus, closely associated -- particularly in and with the geological time and space (see more discussions below) -- in and with their then concurrently evolving metamorphism, in and within the 19th-century Earth’s Stratigraphy and its biospheric Geography -- all of these “geo-bio” phenomena, datasets, and species-taxonomies, that Darwin had had learned, explored, observed, intuited, and experienced: especially in and during his “once in a lifetime” or his “most important and exploratory” Beagle’s “around the world” voyage, in 1831-36!?

4] Indeed, from an evolutionary “geo-bio” transformational anamorphism and a philoscientific mental developmental perspective: Early in his career as the Beagle captain’s accompanying and surveying naturalist (1831-36), Darwin was deeply immersed in; and was subsequently (both intellectually and philoscientifically) guided by the then preeminent British geologist and bio-enthusiast Charles Lyell’s (1797-1875) groundbreaking treatise (3 volumes) titled “Principles of Geology” (or POG; 1830-33)! As such, the theory of “Evolution by NS” (in OOS; 1859) was soon and thereafter congealed in1837 (as the only “stratigraphically-sketched” illustration of a “branching tree of species” on Earth presented in OOS): which had had since been ruminating, arguing, processing, intuiting, theorizing, etc -- especially in Darwin’s then VWME aspiring mind** and intellect** -- while not transgressing into any “non-physical” issues of religion or psychology** but strictly adhering to his own inquiring and acquiring philoscientific testimonies and narrative of, and on, Whether the natural history of all observable life species, might have had been indeed, primordially related, associated, originated, and evolved along with, and throughout, the life-bearing or “breathing” (as Darwin put it) geological times and their concurrent biospheric geographies (see the asterisked [*] footnote in Comment 1 above); and that both the Earth’s Geology and Geography, might have had provided Eons -- of “universal STEM” or uSTEM: space, time, energy, and matter, as defined and tested in and by our modern cosmology (both theoretical and empirical) -- for his then so-deeply intuited, identified, and proposed an “evolutionary” term of Gradualism** in and within the “geo-bio” anamorphism (or macroevolutionism**) to work on -- or to “naturally select” on -- those slow and incremental changes (as Darwin put it: changes in survival characteristics and traits, as those observed in and from fossils as well as life specimens**) in and within the history of life species on Earth!?

[**By gradualism, a geological metamorphic process (which Darwin had learned, intuited, and used) was intended to infer to the evolutionary process of “geogenesis” or stratigraphy (as per Lyellism in POG) as a “probable, parallel, and gradual mechanism” of his then proposed NS theory of the origin of species and traits (as those observed in fossils and in life specimens alike) and was not attempted to infer to the developmental “genetics” -- an inheritance subject matter which was totally a different matter altogether; or the then “organic heredity mechanism” or Mendelism (1822-84; whose experimental genetics would later be dubbed “microevolutionism” by the neo-creationists and neo-Darwinism critics alike, so as to oppose to the neo-Darwinist folly of “evolutionism by natural selectionism” thesis which they have (had) interpreted as “macroevolutionism”) a modern definition that Darwin was completely unaware of, in and throughout his entire scientific and intellectual life in England -- despite the fact that the 20th-century neo-Darwinists have (had) insisted to reductively interpret and persistently misinterpret his NS theory to the contrary; as their now newfound evolutionist-positivist scientism, or dogmatic geneticism, or pseudo-genetics par excellence; even into the 21st century, nowadays (see more comments below; especially the triply-asterisked [***] footnote in Comment 5 below; and “The Selfish Gene” in Comment 2 above)!?

[**Coincidently, based on his own explorations and observations of the life specimens alone (independently collected worldwide), Alfred Wallace (1823-1913) had also intellectually and philoscientifically come up with a theory of the “Evolution of varied life species on Earth” in 1858, titled “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type”; at which time he informed Darwin about it; and thus, his then “short but succinct” essay and timely communication, had had in effects prompted, encouraged, affirmed, convinced, and expedited Darwin, to immediately finalize, complete, and publish his then already budding theory (in the formulating, intuiting, and scripting since 1837) of the “Evolution of species by NS on Earth” titled OOS in 1859!

[**Whereas, by modern definitions -- especially from both the molecular and cellular (disease or normal biochemical and biogenetic) developmental perspectives and processes: or the organic mechanisms which were totally unbeknownst to Darwin and his associates of the time, at all -- the NS theory (as proposed by Darwin while without substantiating with or by any specific organic mechanisms, at all) is Not a “scientific method” for Evolution, at all; Nor an “empirically-falsifiable mechanism” or empiricism for Evolution, at all! At best, the NS theory may now be scholarly and categorically characterized and qualified as a 19th-century philoscientific “natural phenomenology” of Evolution on Earth -- as one nuance “evolutionary theory” narrative, that had had been (both independently and concomitantly) explored, observed, intuited, conceived, theorized, and proposed by Darwin and Wallace themselves, as they both had had simultaneously pronounced and proclaimed of their abstracted works and theories in 1858 to the Linnean Society of London: On and of their then independently explored, investigated, and concluded the 19th-century Earth and Nature (of life species) worldwide (see also the asterisked [*] footnote in Comment 1 above)!?

[**Furthermore, and very importantly in OOS, Darwin also specifically differentiated and delineated his then philoscientific “naturalism” from the then religious “supernaturalism” or “religionism” or “creationism” or Psychology; about which, he succinctly concluded (in just one short paragraph, which the 20th-century neo-Darwinists, biogenetic reductionists, sophists and positivists alike, have (had) so often ignored and negated) that “In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.” Thus, by insistently attempting to extrapolate Darwinism (rhetorically, reductively, and/or dogmatically) into other fields of non-physical Sciences of inquiry (such as psychology or modern neuropsychiatry) the all too over-zealous positivist-evolutionist “neo-Darwinism” can be -- and has (had) been -- proven to be scholarly and historically futile, indeed -- Neither empirical, practical, scientific, Nor ethical, in and for any biomedical R&D professions and trainings at all!? A biogenetic reductionist, evolutionist, and positivist “evolutionary” academic blind alley! Specifically, in this crucial respect, please see one of my cautionary arguments and scholarly warnings here: “The Evolutionary Calculus of Depression -- RE: Let's not dictate Psychiatry by neo-Darwinism -- Evolutionary geneticism vs. Clinical diagnosis, alleviation, of Depression (distresses mental, spiritual, or otherwise)!?" (PsychiatricTimesUSA; June 3, 2010); and more discussions below.]

5] As such, unlike the classical Darwinism of anamorphism (as discussed above), neo-Darwinism is an evolutionary positivist PR thinking being (rhetorically or dogmatically) applied into Biology and Humanity issues to the very extreme -- especially in one extremism or “evolutionism” that Darwin might not have had intuited nor imagined before in his entire life in England -- whereby Darwinism (or his NS theory) has (had) been applied (indiscriminately at discretion and in transgression) into other fields of our non-physical life VWME inquiry: especially in Biomedicine and Genetics, which has (had) since been so distorted, and yet, so popularly endorsed, propagated, and promoted, as a positivist-evolutionist pseudoscientific discipline of their now so-called “evolutionary biology” (or EB) since the 1930s-40s; at which time, when all the too over-zealous neo-Darwinists, reductionists -- especially since the British biologists and evolutionists including Thomas Huxley (1825-95) and his grandson Sir Julian (1887-1975) -- or the 20th-century biogenetic reductionists, fad/bad-science evolutionists, positivists and sophists alike, had had (uncritically nor scientifically) superimposed Darwinism (or the prototypical natural selectionist descriptive and explanatory theory of Evolution; since 1859) -- over -- Mendelism (the empirically-tested organic heredity developmental theory of Genetics; since 1866) as their then newfound “evolutionary theory” of the Modern Synthesis (MS) or the “neo-Darwinism” par excellence, indeed! And, since then MS has (had) been morphed (evermore reductively, anthropomorphically, or eugenically) into another distorted extremism: the perverted neo-Darwinist, pseudo-genetic reductionist-evolutionist fitness fallacy of “kin selectionism” or “geneticism” of course; since the 1960s-70s (see “The Selfish Gene” in Comment 2 above)!?

While trained and worked as an aspiring and experienced geneticist, Theodoseus Dobzhansky (1900-75) was at heart a fervent neo-Darwinist turned biogenetic reductionist himself, whose academic core belief could be accurately summarized in one of his famous essays, that was aptly, and rhetorically, titled “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (1973)! Like the NS theory and natural phenomenology in Darwinism of anamorphism (as analyzed above), the Dobzhansky proclamation -- often quoted without any specific insights nor empiricism support -- has (had) also become one of the evolutionary faddist, neo-Darwinist, and biogenetic reductionist pseudoscience mantras: a dogma that has (had) since been recited, and/or paraphrased, in and for their concurrently EB pursuits and explanatory rhetoric, so as to continually trump, deny, distort, and/or derail our evermore biogenetic SR (since 1980s) in the now genomic-based and driven R&D technologies, practical methodologies, empiricism, and significance of the Mendelian genetics (the organic inheritance mechanism that was first published in 1866) -- especially pursued, critically reviewed, repeatedly tested, empirically expanded, and biochemically extrapolated, in and within our modern cellular and molecular genomics and epigenetics, etc -- in and within our evermore practical scientific disciplines of Biomedicine (including neuropsychiatry, neuropharmacology, etc) and “developmental biology” (or DB) today and beyond (see also the triply-asterisked [***] footnote below; and the doubly-asterisked [**] footnote in Comment 4 above)!?

It is no surprise that (as shown in the very interesting “Nature” article above) Robert Gatenby (a biomedical radiologist by training and profession since 1970s) seems to be recapitulating (reductively, indiscriminately, rhetorically, and uncritically) the very biogenetic reductionist-evolutionist pseudoscientific thinking: by paraphrasing the renowned Dobzhansky rhetoric that “cancer, like all biology, only makes sense in the light of evolution” mantra -- while without providing any falsifiable justifications, at all -- while attempting to interject his now so-called neo-Darwinist “evolutionary first principles of cancer” into our concurrently evermore impressive and progressive state of the accelerated, personalized, genomic-based, anticancer-targeted, and specific biotherapeutic-translated R&D pursuits and practice in Modern Oncology (or MO; since 1980s): an increasingly interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary pursuit of our practical biomedical anticancer inquiry, that has had been accelerating, proliferating, and advancing our evermore modern cancer research and treatment (CRT) R&D issues, pursuits, and practice, by a myriad of the evermore advanced biogenetic engineering technologies and methodologies -- and certainly not by attempting to rhetorically and elusively interject, promote, and propagate the evermore biogenetic reductionist-evolutionist or the neo-Darwinist biased “evolutionary first principle” theories***, biogenetic misconceptions***, misleading metaphors***, and inappropriate analogies*** into MO and DB, with and by, the evermore confused, corrupted, and corroded EB rhetoric and jargons*** alike, since the 1960s-70s (see “The Selfish Gene” in Comment 2 above)!?

[***Since the 1980s, DB (or “developmental biology” that has originated from the organic heredity experimental and developmental genetics of Mendelism since 1866) has (had) been differentiated and delineated from EB (or “evolutionary biology” that has been rhetorically derived from the great naturalist’s phenomenology of species or Darwinism since 1859). EB has in fact inherited “dogmatically and reductively” from the pseudoscientific MS theory past (or “Modern Synthesis” or “neo-Darwinism” that has (had) been unscientifically and uncritically threaded by “superimposing Darwinism over Mendelism” thesis and synthesis theory since the 1930s-40s). Thus, MS is not a falsifiable theory, at all; Nor EB a scientific discipline, either: but an extended, literary imposed and materialist-evolutionist descriptive “reductionism” in Biology and Genetics, whose “evolutionary first principle” rhetoric, has (had) been extrapolated reductively into any other “non-physical” sciences of inquiry and metaphysics alike (see also the doubly-asterisked [**] footnote in Comment 4 above)!?

[***MO (or modern oncology) has been scientifically pursued and founded on DB and experimental Pathology and Genetics -- and not to be dictated, confused, corrupted, and/or misled by the EB rhetoric or jargons, at all! Therefore, the sentence “Cancer is a disease of the genes” is -- both biogenetically and etiologically -- accurate and defined; whereby any R&D pursuits or practice in and for the evermore personalized and genomic-based biotherapeutics, will -- and must -- have to be very disease-specific, and targeted, so as to minimize any unintended or misdirected adverse effects -- especially effects that could be misdirected or misled by the evermore elusive EB theories and misconceived rhetoric alike!?

[***Specifically, the EB analogy of the “devolution” or “convergent evolution” of the cave fish scenario -- to -- the MO “transformation” or “biogenetic development” of tumor cells in and within a tissue ecosystem, has (had) been very misleading and unscientific; Nor the irrelevant EB metaphor of comparing the MO specific genomic-based R&D “pursuits and practice” nowadays -- to -- the post-happy hours of a drunkard’s insistence of a “car keys search” in and within the steady light of a lamp post!? Specifically, the many a cave fish environment, worldwide, is usually an “open-ended” ecosystem: one that may encounter, inherit, maintain, and/or accommodate a varied population of different (or heterogeneous) species of fish (and/or other creatures) in and throughout the entire cave habitat history!? Whereas in an intact or “close-ended” patient-body ecosystem, the varied spontaneously-transforming or arising (and/or later metastasizing) cancer cells, would be “inherently-autologous” to their each respective tissue-ecosystem of origin, in and on themselves -- biogenetically!?

[***Consequently, the “biogenetic reductionist” or the elusive EB “eco-evolutionist” statement that “In other words, understanding the principles governing living communities [whether of the cave fish or tumor cells] does not necessarily require -- and may even be obscured by -- genetics” is frivolously a biogenetic non sequitur in MO and Genomics, nowadays! Neither biomedically-falsifiable, constructive; nor contributory to any of the concurrent R&D pedagogy and/or training purposes in MO or Genomics, at all!? Even worst, if these “evolutionary telltale” or misleading neo-Darwinist EB “evolutionary first principles of cancer” were to be applied or translated into a MO or genomic-based R&D initiative or any practical programs, it could -- and would -- at once prompt a “disqualification and/or biogenetic misconception” review; especially in and for any of the evermore advanced MO biogenetic and/or specific biotherapeutic-targeted R&D programs, in both the high academia and the biotechnology industries alike, since the 1980s!? -- More specific comments on the “autologous tumor ecosystems” are presented here: “Targeting the tumor ecosystem -- RE: A critical Review on “Targeting the tumor ecosystem”: Why couldn’t We (oncologists, clinicians, scientists, biomedical reviewers, critics, etc) be more specific and forthright about Targeting the tumor ecosystems of today and beyond!? -- Or, Targeting which tumor-specific ecosystems: The primary or the metastatic tumor ecosystems!?” (EvolutionMedicineReviewUSA; November 12, 2012).]

In conclusion: Without a full or modern VWME analysis and understanding of our historically philoscientific, scientific (practical vs. theoretical; empirical vs. rhetorical; etc), and pseudoscientific fad/bad science differences (and/or advances that often underlie and being promoted as such) in and within the classical Darwinism vs. neo-Darwinism inquiries and pursuits; the classical Mendelism; genetics; and genomics vs. geneticism issues (including DB vs. EB; evolutionism vs. creationism; science vs. religion; etc) -- and -- by uncritically and undeservingly attempting to shift focus on our evermore advanced cancer research and treatment (CRT) pursuits and principles: especially shifting from one paradigm of the genomic-based DB and practical MO perspectives in R&D pursuits and practice issues -- to -- one of the evermore elusive and irrelevantly PR-driven and dictated, neo-Darwinist, biogenetic reductionist, and EB rhetoric and fallacies above (while without submitting to any empiricism test nor self-criticism, at all: see “The Selfish Gene” in Comment 2 above), the proponents of thus intended paradigm-shift, may well be viewed as the ones, who are indeed trying to emulate and reenact that of “the proverbial man who looks for his car keys under the streetlight because that's where he can see best, we are drawn to intellectual places that promise high levels of information [be it elusive, rhetoric, pseudoscientific, or otherwise, in origin or in question, in our MO or CRT issues and paradigm, nowadays].”

Why Would any well-trained, biogenetically-erudite, and well-disciplined biomedical Specialists (and their aspiring trainees alike) in MO and Genomics era today, be so enticed and fixated on, and by, the evermore elusive “evolutionary” fad/bad science of “evolutionism” by NS “fitness” rhetoric and fallacies (see “The Selfish Gene” in Comment 2 above); or the PR-driven evolutionist, positivist, and sophist propagated “evolutionary” dogma of “neo-Darwinism” and “Scientism” alike of the 19th-20th centuries past -- only to be viewed as frivolously wasting their young and precious VWME inquiry Minds and time, R&D efforts and trainings alike, in our MO genomics and bio-informatics era, nowadays!? -- A caveat lector**** indeed, into the 21st century today and beyond!?

[****This is absolutely fascinating: as I was preparing this response for reposting above, the Editors of the Evolution & Medicine Review (EMR), have just listed a new publication titled “Evolutionary Applications Special Issue on Cancer” -- an open-access journal edited by Louis Bernatchez, that the EMR editors may have had some inputs in. It is no surprise that the EMR has had rejected my heeding criticism above to the contrary!? I would strongly encourage interested Readers to peruse and scrutinize their “evolutionary” applications of their so-called "Darwinian Medicine" on "cancer issues and practice” as well -- into the 21st century today and beyond!?]

Best wishes, Mong 1/27/13usct2:58p; practical science-philosophy critic; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse; 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now (blogging avidly since 2006).