The Third Way Evolution Conference

The Third Way of Evolution is a strange organization composed of mavericks who think they're not getting enough attention. Here's how they describe their movement.

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

The movement recently organized a conference held at Oxford on January 7th, 8th, and 9th 2026 [The 2026 Evolution Conference].

The speakers include the usual suspects (Denis Noble, Jame Shapiro, Eva Joblonka, Michael Levin) along with a number of other scientists who love telling each other about their revolutionary ideas on evolutionary theory. This time they are joined by John Mattick, a prominent opponent of junk DNA who likes to think he has discovered a vast world of non-coding genes that overthrows everything we thought we knew before he started publishing.

I'm quoting the abstract (see below) of his talk on Kuhnian Revolutions in Molecular Biology and Evolution. He's referring, of course, to a paradigm shift that only exists in his imagination. He is why the term "paradigm shaft" was invented [John Mattick's new paradigm shaft].

The term "paradigm shaft" was coined by Sandwalk reader Diogenes who used it to describe someone who sets up a false paradigm and then proceeds to demolish it by announcing a Khunian paradigm shift. Here's John Mattick describing what a paradigm shaft looks like.

In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn described the progress of science as comprising occasional paradigm shifts separated by interludes of normal science, during which investigations are designed and results interpreted within the reigning conceptual framework, until anomalies accumulate and an adequate replacement is formulated. The conceptual framework that has held sway since the inception of molecular biology is that genes are synonymous with proteins, and that all cellular functions, including the control of gene expression, are performed by proteins, tacitly assuming that the mechanisms that regulate microbial physiology are sufficient to orchestrate human development. Many anomalies have accumulated: only 1% of the human genome encodes proteins; genes-in-pieces; transposon-derived repetitive sequences; the lack of scaling of protein-coding genes and the concomitant increase in noncoding sequences with developmental complexity; a plethora of noncoding RNAs expressed in cell-specific patterns; an epigenome; and a million genetic loci termed enhancers that control the spatiotemporal patterns of development. There is a new understanding: Most genes in humans and other complex organisms encode regulatory RNAs that orchestrate the trillions of cell fate decisions that must be made with high precision, and are the primary substrate of adaptive evolution. The long-standing assumptions in evolutionary theory have been that mutations are random and that experience is not communicated to subsequent generations. Both assumptions are demonstrably incorrect, as non-random mutation and epigenetic inheritance have been well-documented in both plants and animals. The underlying issue, as articulated by Downey and Fellows, is that random searches are intractable in complex systems; therefore, evolution must have discovered ways to improve evolvability, especially in mammals, which have long generation times and limited progeny. It is clear there must be an interplay between hard-wired DNA and RNA-directed epigenetic inheritance. Evidence also suggests that the controlled use of transposable elements enhances adaptive exploration. The current challenge is to formulate a cohesive conceptual framework for understanding evolution and evolvability.

In case you haven't been paying attention, this is the false paradigm.

The conceptual framework that has held sway since the inception of molecular biology is that genes are synonymous with proteins, and that all cellular functions, including the control of gene expression, are performed by proteins, tacitly assuming that the mechanisms that regulate microbial physiology are sufficient to orchestrate human development.

Non-coding genes were described in the 1960s when I was still in high school. Regulatory RNAs were a frequent topic at the Cold Spring Harbor 'phage meetings I attended in the late 1960s and early 1970s. By the end of the 1980s we knew of hundreds of non-coding genes and their role in regulating gene expression. Nobody thought that any paradigm was being overthrown. This has been explained to Mattick on many occasions.

In addition to false paradigms, paradise shafters are often guilty of exaggerating their own contribution. In this case it's the number of non-coding genes. When Mattick says, "Most genes in humans and other complex organisms encode regulatory RNAs ..." he is not telling the truth. He would like to think that there are more than 25,000 non-coding genes but that's just his opinion—it is not a fact [How many lncRNA genes in the human genome? (2025)].

I'm guessing that John Mattick has decided to join the Third Way because his ideas aren't being taken seriously by real experts in molecular evolution.

Speaking of serious, here's the creationists gloating about the conference [Oxford Conference on Evolution: Heresies and New Ideas Every Day].

To get a sense of the ferment in the field, you are encouraged to scroll through all three days of the program for the recent Oxford conference on evolution, held January 7 to 9, 2026. That’s three days of heresies and new ideas. The theme of the conference at Balliol College was “Biological Relativity, Evolution for the 21st Century: Future Directions in Evolution Research, In and Outside of Academia.” There is far more than can be summarized here, except to say that Michael Lynch, Jerry Coyne, and Richard Dawkins would have split themselves in two, like Rumpelstiltskin in a wild rage, if they had attended.

Here's a complete list of my posts on John Mattick.

• John Mattick's seminar at the University of Toronto
• John Mattick's new paradigm shaft
• John Mattick's new dog-ass plot (with no dog)
• John Mattick's paradigm shaft
• John Mattick presents his view of genomes
• The biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology (not!)
• John Mattick's latest attack on junk DNA
• How much of the human genome is devoted to regulation?
• John Mattick still claims that most lncRNAs are functional
• John Mattick vs. Jonathan Wells
• The Junk DNA Controversy: John Mattick Defends Design
• The Dark Matter Rises
• How Not to Do Science /li>
• John Mattick on the Importance of Non-coding RNA
• John Mattick Wins Chen Award for Distinguished Academic Achievement in Human Genetic and Genomic Research
• International team cracks mammalian gene control code
• Greg Laden Gets Suckered by John Mattick
• How Much Junk in the Human Genome?
• Genome Size, Complexity, and the C-Value Paradox

---