Within scholarly disciplines the use of concepts is usually embedded in a theoretical view of reality. The latter hides the problem of what is given in an ontic sense or viewed as theoretical constructs. Particularly in respect of living entities there is a general tendency not to distinguish between the multi-faceted nature of living entities and the biotic function of such entities. Leading neo-Darwinian biologists do realize that since molecules are not alive it is mistaken to speak about “molecular biology.” This fact motivated the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, to publish a work on the physical aspect of the cell. He explained the apparent mysterious ability of living entities to increase biotic order within themselves by showing that organisms feed on negative entropy. Von Bertalanffy generalized the second main law of thermodynamics to open systems in order to account for the dynamic “Fliessgleichgewicht” (flowing equilibrium) found in living entities. With reference to the nucleoplasmic index a few remarks are made in respect of the quantitative, spatial and kinematic properties of a cell. These remarks depend upon an insight into the modal universality of the various aspects of reality. It also opens the way to distinguish between modal (aspectual) laws and type laws – where the former hold for all classes of entities with the latter only for a limited class of entities. The big bang theory presupposes the first two laws of physics as well as the irreducibility of number, space, movement and energy-operation as modes of explanation. These laws render the attempt of Hawking to argue that the law of gravity would create the universe meaningless – illustrated by a brief analysis of the law of gravity. This raises the question if physical entities, such as atoms, molecules and macro-molecules, can account for the origin of living entities. Dobzhansky considers the origin of “life” and of “man” as two crises in the “flow of evolutionary events.” Pierre Durand recently claims that the problem of the “origin of life” is solved by explaining it through the accidental formation of RNA (Ribonucleic Acid) strings. However, since living entities require proteins and nucleic acid (DNA), the assumption is that initially protein and DNA had to be present at once. The vicious circle is that without nucleic acids (DNA) the cell lacks the ability to construct proteins and without proteins the cell cannot function as a living unit. Invoking the idea of millions of years does not help, because the truly critical point is condensed into a unique, abrupt moment: before a specific moment the constellation was still non-living and the next moment it became alive. Von Bertalanffy ridicules the physicalist idea that molecules could be alive when he states that one DNA molecule, protein, enzyme or hormonal process is as good as another; each is determined by physical and chemical laws, none is better, healthier or more normal than the other. Producing specified information from purely physical or chemical precursors has never been shown to be possible. Gould refers to Dobzhansky who posed the key question of organic form and taxonomy: “why do organisms form discrete and clearly nonrandom ‘clumps’ in populating morphological space? Why does the domain of mammalian carnivores contain a large cluster of cats, another of dogs, a third of bears, leaving so much unoccupied morphological space between?” The central problem of evolution, according to Dobzhansky, is the origin of discontinuity among species. Emergent-evolutionism wants to have it both ways: continuity in descent and discontinuity in existence. Rensch and Wright revert to assigning “proto-psychical” properties to matter. Wright argues that if mind is totally absent in the non-living universe its appearance will be inexplicable – the emergence of mind from no mind at all is sheer magic. Perhaps the most prominent neo-Darwinian biologist questioning the continuity postulate in biology (actually going back to Leibniz) is Stephen Gould who wrote that these stories begin from the same foundational fallacy and then proceed in an identically erroneous way. They start with the most dangerous of mental traps: a hidden assumption, depicted as self-evident, if recognized at all—namely, a basic definition of evolution as continuous flux. Surely, the impasse exposed in this article will continue to pose a serious challenge to future biological thought.

Username
Password