MARSEILLE – Many Greek philosophers perceived the world to be in perpetual motion – a process of constant evolution. In Charles Darwin’s world, however, creationism set the rules for science. So, underpinning his theory of evolution is the literal interpretation of the Bible that dominated his era, combined with Aristotle’s vision of nature as definitively fixed.
Darwin, together with J. B. Lamarck, promoted a vision of a changing world, while upholding the idea that organisms evolved from a single root – a position held by Adam and Eve in the creationist worldview, and taken over in the modern era by the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). And from that remnant of the Biblical story of creation sprung the notion of a tree of life, alongside major concepts such as gradualism (the view that speciation does not occur abruptly) and the idea that minor selection pressures can, over time, have a profound effect on improved fitness.
Darwin’s vision of the world deeply influenced biology in the twentieth century, despite persistent questions posed by factors such as lateral gene transfer, neutral evolution, and chaotic bottlenecks in natural selection. But recent genetic research unequivocally refutes this worldview.
Life is primarily the expression of the information contained in genes. All living organisms appear as mosaics of genetic tissue, or chimeras, suggesting that no two genes have the same evolutionary history. This framework is incompatible with the “tree of life” representation. Rather, it resembles a rhizome – an underground stem that sends out roots and shoots that develop into new plants.
Indeed, we now know that the proportion of genetic sequences on earth that belongs to visible organisms is negligible. Furthermore, only 15% of the genetic sequences found in the samples from the environment and from feces analyzed in metagenomic studies belong to the three domains of microbes currently recognized in the tree-of-life framework – bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. Viruses contain another 15-30% of these genetic sequences.
The unidentified genetic sequences pose a problem, because it is not known whether vehicles other than viruses, bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes exist. Conversely, we know that new genes, designated ORFans (“orphan genes”), are commonly created by gene duplication, fusion, or other unknown mechanisms. Yet, according to Darwin’s tree of life concept, this phenomenon would be impossible.
Human cells comprise genes of eukaryotic, bacterial, archaean, and viral origin. As this chimerism increases, it occasionally integrates genes from microbes that live within the human body – as happens when a human is infected by herpesvirus 6. Once integrated in a person’s genome, these genes can be transmitted from parent to child – making microbial genes their “grandfathers.”
This transfer of genetic sequences from parasites to hosts could involve hundreds of genes for a bacterium in different hosts. For example, if the bacterium Wolbachia’s genes are integrated by different hosts, such as spiders, insects, or worms, the hosts’ offspring are also descendants of Wolbachia.
Moreover, certain viruses’ size and genetic repertoire is comparable with that of bacteria, archaea, or small eukaryotes. Indeed, the life of giant viruses is as complex as that of like-sized microorganisms.
But the current classification of the domains of life is based on the ribosome – the production apparatus of proteins – which does not exist in these viruses. Without ribosomes, traditionalists say, viruses cannot be considered biological entities comparable to other microbes. But that is pure dogma; these viruses are akin to the other microbes.
Darwin’s theory is further used to support the belief that ancient humans – Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and Denisova – did not mix. In fact, based on Darwin’s assumptions, most anthropologists claim that modern humans were simply descended from Cro-Magnons, who had exterminated their less-fit adversaries. Given this supposition, a single name (Homo sapiens) is used for both modern humans and the preferred ancestor, Cro-Magnon. But we now know that modern humans are chimeras of these three ancient humans.
This understanding also refutes the legend of “Mitochondrial Eve,” the woman from whom all humans supposedly descend on their mother’s side. Research on the human leukocyte antigen genes, which are involved in the human immune response, shows that such a common ancestor could not have existed; this group of genes derives from those of all three known ancient humans.
Genetic research, in particular, must be free to find new models to explain, and enhance, twenty-first-century scientific discovery. Today, Darwin’s theory of evolution is more a hindrance than a help, because it has become a quasi-theological creed that is preventing the benefits of improved research from being fully realized.


Comments (0)
You need to login in order to leave a comment. If you do not yet have an account, please register.
The two commenting options explained
Watch a 1 minute video
to discover how you can comment on the entire article or a specific paragraph. The two images below also explain the two ways of commenting.
1) Entire article comment
Once logged in, simply click inside the comment box where it says "Enter text here." Enter and post your comment.
2) Paragraph comment
Please log in first. Then click to the left of the desired paragraph. Your cursor will automatically move to the comments box. Enter and post your comment.
David Joseph Deutch
The fact that we still cling to dogmatic stand points is demonstrative of the fact that the death of metaphysics, at the hand of Heidegger and Nietzsche, is yet to be taken seriously.
This article does a wonderful job at demonstrating the temporal nature of our models of knowledge.
In short, we need to move beyond our dogmatic stand points in science, religion, economics and politics. We need to embrace the notion that we will never discover the finite truth of an event, we will simply move from model to model.
Stephane MOT
The real question should be: is Didier Raoult a closet Creationist or just a questionably honest scientist?
http://e-blogules.blogspot.com/2012/07/didier-raoult-closet-creationist-or.html
I'm not surprised to see this kind of smokescreen pop up the day after the official discovery of the 'particle of God'
Jules Pierre
I would like to let Project Syndicate members know that Didier Raoult is considered, in the field of evolution, as a polemist of the kind of Claude Allegre in the field of climate. One that builds on a career in another field and becomes a philosopher in one where his scientific contribution is negligible.
His vision of darwinism dates back to one century ago, when all processes he describes were not known (nor was DNA), as he does not understand that the adjective darwinism is essentially a hommage and does not textually refers to Darwin's writings. It is an evidence that, writing in the XIXth century, Darwin had many things wrong — starting with his view of genetics. Our understanding of many aspects of evolution has changed since, and continues to extend upon new findings.
Finally, calling darwinism a theological creed is a disgraceful attack on scientists and a very dangerous expression toward the public.
Boris Krumov @SeoKungFu
Let them mix a bunch of chemical and if they can create out of the mixture at least a single cell organism their theories are right !
Frank O'Callaghan
The idea that, because of nucleic acid insertion in the dna of a host by a parasite, the host progeny are descendants of the parasite is a provocative one. I imagine that is exactly what Prof Raoult has intelligently designed his argument to be. But! If the insertion is not in to a germ line cell the point falls.
The Darwinian theory has withstood stronger criticism than this.
I confess that I am unaware of the evidence that we are chimeras of "Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and Denisova". When closely related subspecies reproduce we often refer to a hybrid. I am further unaware of distantly related species reproducing. This may be a terminological problem. If admixtures of the DNA exist then it suggests that what we regard as separate species may be better reclassified as local variants or at the extreme interpretation sub-subspecies.