Do We Understand Heredity and Evolution? No

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Genetics has long been regarded as the cornerstone of biology—explaining how life reproduces, evolves, and sustains human health. Mendelism, including Johannsen’s 1911 genotype conception, which posits that ‘genes are the units of heredity’, supplanted Galton’s earlier phenotype-based statistical law of ancestral heredity. Yet, this shift was not the result of decisive empirical validation. Evidence accumulated over the past three decades challenges the genotype conception. In 1992, the discovery of radiation-induced genomic instability and the bystander effect undermined the assumption that heritable change is strictly gene-dependent. In 2009, genetic variance failed to account for the fitness trajectory observed in the Long-Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) with _E. coli_. By 2013, it became evident that evolution in the LTEE was thermodynamically—not genetically—driven. This paper traces the historiography of heredity from 1880 onwards, critically re-evaluates Mendelism, and reviews recent empirical findings. It concludes that Mendelism fails as a scientific framework. There is no solid comprehension underpinning the life sciences, human health, or evolutionary theory, exposing a profound failure in twentieth-century biology.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00