I recently read about some study whose results conflict with Darwinian evolution. Despite the conflict, the author’s logic basically said that even though Darwinian thinking could not explain what nature contains, the fact that this happened meant that ‘somehow’ evolution had brought about this result, and that more study was needed to find out just how this had happened. It occurred to me—for the first time—that this type of argument is made over and over again by Darwinists (evolutionary biologists, for the easily offended). What do we hear: (1) Even though the ‘odds’ of all the necessary elements and individual components of the ‘original’ cell and its contained DNA (or RNA, if we want to dream) is astronomically high, meaning Read More ›

Professor Larry Moran has graciously responded to my five questions on the neutral theory of evolution in a recent blog post at Sandwalk, titled, Answering creationist questions about Neutral Theory (6 May 2014). I’ve highlighted Professor Moran’s responses below. 1. Do you agree or disagree with the view expressed by Motoo Kimura that natural selection is necessary to explain evolution occurring at the morphological level? Professor Moran: Some evolution at the morphological level can be attributed to natural selection and some is due to random genetic drift. The latter category includes neutral morphological changes and a small percentage of detrimental morphological changes. I was influenced in this view by Masatoshi Nei’s book Molecular Evolutionary Genetics (1987). [Professor Moran then proceeds Read More ›