Do We Need a New Theory of Evolution?

By Perry Marshall

March 8, 2023 | 0 Comment

The Guardian ran an excellent article on the revolution that is happening in evolutionary biology:

This revolution is very much underway. The trickle turned into a flood in 2016 at the Royal Society. An article like this should have appeared in the Guardian afterward in November 2016 but didn’t. In fact, very little was said about it in the mainstream press and the news is coming six years later. New thinking is replacing old in other specialties much faster than it is taking place in evolutionary biology. For example, cancerembryonic development and consciousness.

I am shocked at the low level of explanatory power that traditional evolutionists are content with. As you see in the article, it doesn’t bother them that they can’t explain the developmental process of eyes or wings or any other complex trait. I’m astounded that they’re happy with that. But the conflict comes from people whose standards are much higher.

In future blogs, I will also report on Denis Noble’s debate with Richard Dawkins at the How the Light Gets In festival which was eye opening to say the least. I predict that during the next 20 years, most of what textbooks define as “evolution” will be completely replaced with new systems and mechanisms. This will, in turn, lead to significant advances in treating cancer, disease, and birth defects.

Enjoy this well-written article by Stephen Buranyi in the Guardian:


Perry Marshall

NASA Jet Propulsion Labs uses his 80/20 Curve as a productivity tool. His reinvention of the Pareto Principle is published in Harvard Business Review. His Ultimate Guide to Google Ads is the best-selling book on internet advertising. A business strategist and electrical engineer, Perry founded the largest science research award in history. The $10 million Evolution 2.0 Prize will be judged by scientists from Harvard, Oxford, and MIT. Seeing that existing financial incentives favor prolonging cancer rather than curing it; and realizing the medical profession has incorrectly defined the disease in the first place... he chose to apply entrepreneurial thinking to the problem.


It's time to
Donate Now