Darwin attacked (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Sunday, June 21, 2015, 18:00 (3442 days ago)
The objections to his theory:-https://youtu.be/eWBENbYj4so?list=UUiaAR-YhKGdI9Tbh70IoQoQ
Darwin attacked: speciation not explained
by David Turell , Thursday, June 29, 2017, 01:36 (2704 days ago) @ David Turell
A valid point:
https://designdisquisitions.wordpress.com/2017/06/28/quote-of-the-month-h-allen-orr-on-...
"He [Darwin] recognized that he asked his readers to believe both that most evolution is due to natural selection and that sterility of hybrids routinely evolves. Indeed, Darwin spent an entire chapter of the Origin of Species trying to explain away this paradox, but his attempt was less than overwhelmingly successful. Hence the common (and correct) charge that the Origin of Species neglected to explain the origin of species.”
"-H. Allen Orr (“Dobzhansky, Bateson, and the Genetics of Speciation” – Genetics Society of America)
"Orr’s comment here echoes the pioneering Dutch geneticist, Hugo De Vries, when he famously stated that ‘natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.'(1) In more modern times, we hear similar admissions from evolutionary biologists like Andreas Wagner in his book Arrival of the Fittest, claiming that Darwin left evolution’s greatest puzzle unexplained. These claims are of course historical rather than about the current state of evolutionary biology. With regard to modern evolutionary theory we are repeatedly assured that Darwin’s theory and its many and various extensions have most things covered nowadays. That is another question altogether, but as it happens, I see little evidence that, even now, the ‘arrival of the fittest’ has been adequately explained under the reigning naturalistic framework.
"As to the historical claim about Darwin’s lack of success, I have no desire to exaggerate or on the other hand downplay his achievements beyond what the evidence really shows us. It’s important to be honest. It is however a breath of fresh air to have these rather more subdued assessments of Darwin’s work rather than the highly suspect pronouncements made by most avid Darwinists, who tell us that Darwin gave us a sufficiently detailed and unassailable naturalistic account of biological change. He did no such thing."
Comment: Perfectly valid comment. Orr is an outspoken confirmed Darwinist.
Darwin attacked: speciation not explained
QUOTE: "As to the historical claim about Darwin’s lack of success, I have no desire to exaggerate or on the other hand downplay his achievements beyond what the evidence really shows us. It’s important to be honest. It is however a breath of fresh air to have these rather more subdued assessments of Darwin’s work rather than the highly suspect pronouncements made by most avid Darwinists, who tell us that Darwin gave us a sufficiently detailed and unassailable naturalistic account of biological change. He did no such thing."
DAVID's comment: Perfectly valid comment. Orr is an outspoken confirmed Darwinist.
I couldn't agree more. Down with the bigoted defenders, down with the bigoted attackers, and let's have a balanced view of the strengths and the weaknesses of Darwin's different theories.
Thank you for the posts on "time and consciousness" and "ambiguous causality". I'm afraid they both leave me crying out for just a smattering of common sense. But maybe I'm bigoted too.
Darwin attacked: vertebrate body plan not explained
by David Turell , Saturday, July 06, 2019, 18:32 (1966 days ago) @ dhw
The authors claim the vertebrate body plan is not/has not been explained by Darwinism:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160831085527.htm
"According to Neo-Darwinian theory, major evolutionary changes occur as a result of the selection of random, fortuitous genetic mutations over time. However, some researchers say this theory does not satisfactorily account for the appearance of radically different life forms and their rich complexity, particularly that observed in vertebrates like humans.
"Embryo geometry, developed by a team from the University of San Diego, Mount Holyoke College, Evergreen State College, and Chem-Tainer Industries, Inc.. in the USA, looks at animal complexity generally and the vertebrate body in particular as more the products of mechanical forces and the laws of geometry than solely the outcome of random genetic mutation.
"'At the suggestion of evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, preliminary attempts at a solution to this problem were undertaken over many years. But these -- as well as other, similar efforts -- were met with strong opposition by supporters of the Neo-Darwinian interpretation of natural selection," commented senior author Stuart Pivar. "We hope that the theory of embryo geometry will stimulate further investigation by biologists of all stripes across a variety of fields."
"Anatomists have long postulated that animal complexity arises during development of the embryo -- called embryogenesis -- but despite detailed descriptions of the embryonic stages of all major types of animal, the evolution of organismal complexity and its expression during individual development have remained mysterious processes -- until now.
"The researchers behind embryo geometry have shown that the vertebrate embryo could conceivably arise from mechanical deformation of the blastula, a ball of cells formed when the fertilized egg divides. As these cells proliferate, the ball increases in volume and surface area, altering its geometry. The theory posits that the blastula retains the geometry of the original eight cells produced by the first three divisions of the egg, which themselves determine the three axes of the vertebrate body.
"In their new paper, they present 24 schematic figures -- or "blueprints" -- showing how the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, nervous, and reproductive systems form through mechanical deformation of geometric patterns. These illustrations explain how the vertebrate body might plausibly arise from a single cell, both over evolutionary time, and during individual embryogenesis.
Comment: the process of building an embryo from one cell certainly looks magical when the process is followed step by step. Certainly mechanical deformation is part of the planned process. Accepting a designer is certainly reasonable. From the abstract of the paper as they struggle to explain things :
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610716300542?via%3Dihub
"Through graphical depictions, we demonstrate the formation of principal structures of the vertebrate body via mechanical deformation of predictable geometrical patterns during gastrulation. The descriptive rigor of our model is supported through comparisons with previous characterizations of the embryonic and adult vertebrate bauplane. Though speculative, the model addresses the poignant absence in the literature of any plausible account of the origin of vertebrate morphology. A robust solution to the problem of morphogenesis—currently an elusive goal—will only emerge from consideration of both top-down (e.g., the mechanical constraints and geometric properties considered here) and bottom-up (e.g., molecular and mechano-chemical) influences."