Logic and evolution: current Darwin theory debate (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 13:20 (2018 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is not much left of the Darwin Theory

dhw: I do not think there is anything in this article that we have not covered in our own discussions. You and I have agreed that random mutations are out as an explanation for the complexities of evolutionary innovation, and we also agree that Darwin was wrong in his insistence that Nature does not make jumps. What is left is the enormously important theory of common descent and the influence of environmental factors, plus natural selection, which determines what innovations survive (this being a passive process that creates nothing). In other words the concept of evolution itself remains untouched, and the controversy is over the mechanisms which have enabled it to take place.

DAVID: My point is Darwin does not explain speciation, which you imply. Living biochemistry systems certainly suggest design.

That is not what I implied. Nobody can explain speciation. I have listed those elements of his theory which I consider to be valid and those I do not. In this category, I should perhaps also have included the title of his book, since clearly natural selection does not explain the origin of species.

Thank you for the second, two-part article, but once again there is absolutely nothing in it that we have not covered over and over again in our 11 years of discussions. Common descent is in, random mutations are out etc., as above. What a shame that there is no mention of the possibility that cellular intelligence (possibly designed by a God) fills the gap left by discredited random mutations.

I find it deeply discouraging that by constantly focusing on the unknown mechanisms that cause evolution, some of these commentators kid themselves that they are discrediting the rest of the theory, which many of us still regard as valid.