Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com 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!
- [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" Blogger.com 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) "Nature" articles on "evolution and cancer" -- 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)!? (EvolutionMedicineReviewUSA; submitted, January 6) -- Where it was rejected; so I shall repost it en masse with a new introduction and title (in red) below:
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).