Mazur (see previous post) has been following the attempted paradigm shift in biology and it seems it isn’t going to happen. That’s because biologists don’t have a theory of evolution. If they drop darwinism and honestly they must they end up in a mess of pottage.
We have a short book of posts on the issues here but the establishment can’t deal with outsiders, and they can’t from the inside get to the gist of what a theory of evolution has to be.
Let’s do a short short summary of the stuff at the link above:
‘evolution’ means development which means a ‘process in stages over time’
the above implies evolution is directed and teleological
current science can’t allow directionality
therefore science (as current) can’t achieve a theory of evolution.
Over and over I recommend a look at the model in WHEE. Biologists are confused by biochemistry: they are looking for the mechanism of evolution in a set of molecules. They won’t find it (I am almost sure of that, but my approach could be mirrored in some form of biochemistry we don’t see yet ) because evolution operates at a higher level. If it is about development then some information exists in advance about what development is going to do. Biologists have examples of development: the format ought to show something analogous.
Once we consider this, then we can bring adaptation back in as a second level of ‘microevolution’ renaming ‘evolution’ as development ‘macroevolution’.
But unfortunately ‘evolution’ is development over millions to plus years and it is not clear where the ‘information’ about development comes from. It is confused with religious issues. The Goldilocks principle shows that physicists have to deal with this kind of thing.
This approach is common sense, which was lost when Darwin spread his confusion about random evolution. Lamarck had the gist: he saw two levels, as above: a drive toward complexity, and a lower level of adaptation. Darwinism reduced levels to one and have since remained confused.