A transdisciplinary perspective concerning the origin of the species: The migratory theory of genetic fitness
World Futures 65 (3):166 – 175 (2009)
AbstractAlthough the Neo-Darwin Theory of Evolution is one of the most celebrated theories in science, nonetheless it has received many criticisms. These criticisms are documented and a new transdisciplinary theory of origin is introduced. Darwin's original argument was that natural selection, through heritable changes, changed simple organisms over time. These heritable changes are responsible for the complex plethora of life seen around us today. Darwin's original theory, however, was deconstructed after the fact into a mutation-based theory. This mutation-based theory in its current form is an insufficient and indeed unnecessary transdisciplinary explanation. A subsequent statistical comparison between the six extant scientifically based primary theories of origin was undertaken and based on current biological knowledge a statistically significantly best fit phenotypic model emerged
Similar books and articles
Shifting Frames: From Divided to Distributed Psychologies of Scientific Agents.Peter J. Taylor - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:304-310.
Commodification or Compensation: A Reply to Ketchum.H. M. Malm - 1989 - Hypatia 4 (3):128-135.
A Novel Interpretation of Plato’s Theory of Forms.P. X. Monaghan - 2010 - Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: Essays in Honour of Heinz Post.S. French & H. Kamminga (eds.) - 1993 - Dordrecht: Reidel.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
The Selfish Gene. [REVIEW]Gunther S. Stent & Richard Dawkins - 1977 - Hastings Center Report 7 (6):33.
The design revolution: Answering the toughest questions about intelligent design.William Dembski - manuscript
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution.Kenneth R. Miller - 2002 - Journal of the History of Biology 35 (1):181-183.