Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig
Mar 22, 2014 editor Exclusive, Flash, Interviews 0
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a prominent name in the science world, and until his retirement in 2008, continued to contribute to the science world with his studies at Max-Planck Institute. His articles were published in various articles and is in the board of a peer-reviewed scientific journal Bio-Complexity.He was interviewed by many publications including Der Spiegel and in addition to attending seminars and conferences on a frequent basis as a sought-after speaker, he has written several books on the evidence pointing to flaws in evolutionary theory, and also one about how the science world is pressured into believing in Darwinist theories.
1) Thank you very much for talking to us, Mr. Lönnig. I would like to start with your works. Could you tell us about your current projects and areas of specialization?
Well, I have been a mutation and transposon geneticist from 1985 until my retirement in 2008 (from 1992 on I was also as a senior scientist and group leader) at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, following a two years period as a guest scientist there until 2010 (with still some permitted plants in 2013).
Nevertheless, I am now all the more interested in the topic of the origin of species and higher systematic categories, investing perhaps more time on these questions than ever, working now like old Darwin, if this comparison is allowed, at home.
So, during the last few years, from 2011 to 2014, I have written and published four books about different evolutionary topics. In the following the titles are listed as translated from the German language, adding a few brief comments:
(1) “The Max-Planck-Affair” Which Never Happened (First and Second Edition 2011; Monsenstein und Vannerdat, Münster, 219 pp).
This is a book on one (later splitting into two) German Evolutionary Group(s), which – absurdly in the name of science – do almost everything they can to suppress in the public all kinds of well-founded scientific criticism against neo- Darwinism or “the modern synthesis”.
The book deals, among other points, with the history of my invited homepage at the Max Planck Institute and how the evolutionary groups just mentioned ‘succeeded’ in a 4-years war – by pressure on the four Directors of the Institute and two Presidents of the Max Planck Society – to shut down that page including the invited link to it, using false complaints in national and international magazines (from Der Spiegel to Nature) by lyingly asserting that I would be a creationist denying the scientific method.
My next book was on problems of evolutionary theories with carnivorous plants:
(2) The Evolution of Carnivorous Plants – What Selection Cannot Achieve: The Example of Utricularia (Bladderwort). (Third Edition 2012; Monsenstein und Vannerdat, Münster, 274 pp).
The complex trap mechanism of the bladderwort, especially of the cosmopolitan U. vulgaris– a carnivorous aquatic plant catching water-fleas and other small animals – is one of my favorite examples against any of the present evolutionary theories. In 2009, i. e. after 7 years counted from the beginnings of their war on science, one of evolutionary groups published a lengthy article trying to explain that mechanism evolutionarily by mutations and selection. On 274 pp. I could prove in detail that they utterly failed.
Following that publication was a book on the giraffe:
(3) The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffe camelopardalis L.). What Do We Really Know? Testing the Theories of Gradualism, Macromutation, and Intelligent Design. First Edition 2012; Monsenstein und Vannerdat, Münster, 134 pp.)
All the important links in the hypothetical evolution of the long-necked giraffes are still missing, and, in fact, the evolutionary problems have been aggravated by additional studies of the fine-tuned synorganization of all the organ systems necessary to guarantee the successful life of that largest of the contemporary land mammals. This topic arose in the public in connection with German TV-program (for which I was the adviser) as well as also with the homepage mentioned above, not to mention the question of the merits of the theory of intelligent design. The book is available in English and German (Amazon).
My most recent book is on the origin and evolution of dogs:
(4) Our Domestic Dog: A Shrew in Wolves’s Clothings? Or Do the Dog Breeds Prove That Humans Are Derived From Bacteria? (First Edition 2014; Monsenstein und Vannerdat, Münster, 407 pp, more than 150 Colour Figures).
Starting point for this book was the assertion by Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists that dog breeds prove macroevolution. However, virtually all the dog breeds are generated by losses or disturbances of gene functions and/or developmental processes. Moreover, all the three subfamilies of the family of wild dogs (Canidae) appear abruptly in the fossil record.
The arguments and facts shown in this book demonstrate that ingenious design is the best explanation for the origin of this family of mammals as well.
2) You explain that Neo-Darwinism makes falsifiable claims. What exactly does this mean and could you give us some examples of those claims?
Well, a scientific hypothesis should be potentially falsifiable, that is, there should be criteria according to which a hypothesis can be disproved and thus be rejected as false. As to the origin of species, Darwin had asserted that evolution proceeds by “infinitesimally small inherited variations”, “steps not greater than those separating fine varieties” and “insensibly fine steps”, “for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps”. This is also the credo of most modern evolutionists (neo-Darwinians) and, in principle, even of the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory (details are given in the books mentioned above).
However, the idea of slow evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited variations” etc. has been falsified by the findings of paleontology (abrupt appearance of the Baupläne) as well genetics (origin of DNA and complex genetic information). Yet any scientific proof against neo-Darwinism is principally rejected by its adherents, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable world-view, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence. Their main reason: Without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.
3) Could you tell us about intelligent design and how we can see it in nature?
Some of the best and most often quoted definitions read like this: “The theory of intelligent design (ID)holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection” (Stephen C. Meyer and others). And the biochemist Michael J. Behe has defined intelligent design as the “purposeful arrangement of parts.”
As to the question, how we can see it nature, I would refer our readers to two key terms of the intelligent design theory: (1) irreducible complexity and (2) specified complexity.
Concerning irreducible complexity, the reader is first invited to consider Darwin’s sufficiency test for his theory (1859, p. 219): “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Darwin, however, stated that he could “not find out such a case”. Biochemist Michael J. Behe (1996/2006, p. 39) has refined Darwin’s statement by introducing and defining his concept of ‘irreducibly complex systems’, specifying: “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”
Among the examples discussed by Behe are the origins of (a) the cilium, (b) the bacterial flagellum with filament, hook and motor embedded in the membranes and cell wall and (c) the biochemistry of blood clotting in humans. Moreover, the traps of Utricularia(and some other carnivorous plant genera) as well as joints, echo location, deceptive flowers etc. could be referred to. None of these systems has been convincingly explained by neo-Darwinism, but all display a “ purposeful arrangement of parts” and many of them are irreducibly complex, that is “wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”. Such functional core systems cannot have arisen in a stepwise fashion as is required by most evolutionary theories.
“Specified complexity”: According William A. Dembski, “given an event, object, or structure, to convince ourselves that it is designed, we need to show that it is improbably (i.e. complex) and suitably patterned (i.e. specified).” – A criterion, which can be applied, for example, to the origin of all new orders, classes, and Baupläne.of life on earth. W. Dembski has discussed the implications and objections to this concept at length in several volumes.
4) Do you think photosynthesis is an example of intelligent design? Why?
Yes, I do. Since according to cell-biologist Lorraine Lee Cudmore about seventy separate chemical reactions are involved in photosynthesis of flowering and other plants with probably several interconnected irreducibly complex core systems participating in the process, ID is the best explanation offered so far. In my mutation experiments I detected hundreds of totally white seedlings where usually one individual mutation alone, most often at different sides in different plant families, stopped the entire system from functioning at all (reminds, of course of Behe’s definition of “the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” – see above.
5) What do the fossil records tell us about the origin of plants?
It’s the same as in animals (examples: the Cambrian explosion or the explosive origin of mammal orders and families): Abrupt appearances and stasis are the general rulealso in the fossil record of plants. Most famous is the abrupt origin of the angiosperms, to which most of the flowering plants belong (Darwin’s “abominable mystery”, as he called it in a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker in 1879).
6) Could you tell us about the origin and biology of carnivorous plants?
I have written a book about that topic in 2012 (see above). In an article of 2004/2007 H.-A. Becker and me wrote about these plants that “they present the most captivating problems for systematics and evolution”. And several evolutionist admitted that ‘the evolution of leaves with trap systems from noncarnivorous ones is mysterious, and there are no widely accepted hypotheses’ (Rivadavia et al.). The above mentioned Utricularia, for example, opens and shuts its watertight door in less than 1 millisecond. How could such a system become watertight in thousands of little mutational steps?
7) Do you think there is a Darwinist hold in the world of science that keeps giving silent warnings to all the scientists to stay loyal to evolutionary ideas?
Definitely yes, as I myself had to experience (see book on the “Max-Planck-Affair” mentioned above). Since Darwinism is unable to answer almost all of the most important questions on the origin of species, its only option is suppression of scientifically valid criticism. What else can they do under these circumstances?
8) Are there many scientists like yourself who dare to challenge evolutionary ideas?
I know many who avoid these questions altogether in order not to jeopardise their career, but most of them simply haven’t heard that there are valid scientific objections against Neo-Darwinism.
9) What do you think can be done to overcome this prejudice against any idea that is not Darwinian?
Free and open discussion without any persecution and repression of dissenting biologists. According to Neo-Darwinism all important problems of the origin of species are, at least in principle, solved. Further questions on the validity of evolutionary theory are thus basically superfluous. However, such a dogmatic attitude stops further investigations and hinders fruitful research in science. The scientific ID-theory, in contrast, follows the evidence wherever it leads and several of its predictions have already been found to be true, as for example, the refutation of the junk-DNA-hypothesis during the last few years. The irreducibly complex and specified systems in biology overwhelmingly point to an intelligent origin of living beings. Almost every day further complex such systems are discovered in biological research.
http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/interview-with-wolf-ekkehard-lonnig/ |
