“Modern synthesis” never was anything other than Darwinism hitchhiking the real science of Genetics out of its well deserved obscurity. But Mendel’s genetics demolished Darwin’s “gradualism” and is the anti-Darwin and true, testable science unlike Darwinism. Therefore, the shotgun marriage between Mendel and Darwin known as “Modern Synthesis” never made any sense. Blending inheritance in which offspring were thought to be the genetic intermediates of their two parents is the gradualism imagined by Darwin, but blending inheritance would result in the rapid end of genetic variation within a population contrary to biologic observations. Once demonstrated false, biologic gradualism should have been dropped altogether and without this pillar, Darwinism would have crumbled like the sandcastle it is.
More and more evidence against Darwinian evolution comes to light and can no longer be ignored. Epigenetics, antibodies, hormones, and parts of the microbiome are passed on from parents to descendants. So why not just merge Darwinism with Lamarckism and be done with it? It’s not as simple given that – “easy come easy go” – epigenetic adaptations do not seem to persist beyond a few generations while other adaptations, such as antibiotic resistance, seem part of the inbuilt capabilities of organisms rather than representing the evolution narrative.
As an EES proponent notes, “the extraordinary level of parallel evolution between cichlid fishes in Lake Malawi, and Lake Tanganyika was brushed off as convergent evolution, but something else might be going on. What if some ways of building a fish are just more probable than others?” That of course means “Blind, mindless, unguided and purposeless” qualifiers of evolution are contrary to evidence.
The solution? According to the same EES proponent: “In the EES the burden of creativity in evolution does not rest on natural selection alone… If evolution is not to be explained solely in terms of changes in gene frequencies; if previously rejected mechanisms such as the inheritance of acquired characteristics turn out to be important after all; and if organisms are acknowledged to bias evolution through development, learning and other forms of plasticity – does all this mean a radically different and profoundly richer account of evolution is emerging? No one knows…”
Actually, a better alternative would be reexamining the whole “evolution” narrative. We would learn that more than a small part of the evolution dogma is flawed. But this is hard to do objectively, if not impossible, given how vested in the evolution philosophy are its proponents regardless of the accumulating contrary observations.