Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community


Do genetics and homology really support Darwinism where the fossil record has failed?

Klinghoffer: Even if universal common ancestry is true, there seemingly is no drawable “true tree.” As Lukas says, “Those who study homology simply assume evolution to be true, but they’ve never actually demonstrated that the ancestral evolutionary relationships between different organisms are real.” Read More ›

Evolutionary genomics with Richard Buggs: Why flowering plants are a mystery

Talk intro: Charles Darwin was convinced that the evolution of complexity must proceed by tiny steps. Only tiny steps could be accumulated by natural selection. The process had to go slowly for it to work. Billions of years were needed. But Darwin was aware that this theory had a problem: flowers. Read More ›

The curious connection between Charles Darwin and John Brown

Aeschliman: "After the Civil War and the death of Lincoln, 'those that stepped into the pathway marked by men like John Brown faltered and large numbers turned back,' Du Bois wrote. 'They said: He was a good man — even great, but he has no message for us today — he was a "belated [Protestant] Covenanter," an anachronism in the age of Darwin, one who gave his life to lift not only the unlifted but the unliftable.'" Read More ›

Why punctuated equilibrium did not rescue modern evolutionary theory

Re Stephen Jay Gould returning to traditional Darwinism: Didn’t E. O. Wilson try escaping the vice grip of Darwinism with “group selection” and then dramatically returning to full orthodoxy, leaving many dozens of supporters stranded? Complete academy acceptance is a powerful motivator… Read More ›

A friend reminds us of what philosopher Michael Polanyi had to say about Darwinian evolution

Doesn’t seem like Oxford liked him much for that. And then there’s what Gertrude Himmelfarb had to say at the same time… Hey, a walk through history when it is fun and instructive. Read More ›

Neil Thomas on how Darwin’s Origin of Species came to be madly adored

Darwinism was never very good at explaining the world of nature as such. It provided a fashionable basis for atheism in a world otherwise dominated by finely tuned laws. Thomas provides a fine tour of the nineteenth century in which that was just the thing many were looking for. Read More ›

What? Paper on human mutation admits to “fundamentally challenging” neo-Darwinism?

But Darwinism about human beings is the bread and butter of pop science media! If that’s under threat now, what will become of, for example, evolutionary psychology? Read More ›

How Darwinians deal with the lack of evidence for gradualism

They pick an easy target like body size, for one thing. A supposedly slam dunk paper deals with body size in mammals. Trouble is, says Casey Luskin, it’s too easy a topic. Body size is — everyone agrees — easily malleable, compared to say, the development of vision. Read More ›

Neil Thomas on “Evolutionary Theory as Magical Thinking”

Thomas: The shaky logical basis of Darwin’s thinking has not gone entirely unremarked. The notion of a supposedly unintelligent yet remarkably independent “self-evolving” biosphere (like the postulation of a self-creating cosmos) presents, when dispassionately considered, an offense to logic great enough to invite attempts to square the circle. Read More ›

Neil Thomas on why so many 19th century thinkers turned a blind eye to Darwinism’s problems

It’s a religion without the transcendent hitch. That’s the main reason that so many people today are impervious to the fact that illustrations of Darwinism are often just nonsense barked in Darwin’s name. Read More ›

Ant can create pain in mammals – “evolution” story assumed

Curiously, we actually don’t know that this extreme targeted pain defense “evolved.” No evolutionary pathway is indicated. It could have been natural selection or horizontal gene transfer. Which? Or maybe the ant was always like that. Read More ›

Common sensor in bacteria and humans highlights reason for doubt re Darwinian tales

At this point, claims that Darwinism can “accommodate” HGT should be seen for what they are special pleading in the face of challenging new findings in evolution. Read More ›

Neil Thomas on Darwinism’s place in the Victorian culture wars

Anyone familiar with popular science writing on evolution will see what Thomas means here. Darwinism is introduced as a hypothesis/theory but then treated as a dogma/article of faith — and (this is emotionally very important) a way of segregating the Smart People from the Yobs and Yayhoos. Appeals to science-based analysis fall on deaf ears because the dogma has become what “science” now means. Read More ›

Is Stephen Jay Gould now considered a… creationist?

Overheard in the Uncommon Descent News virtual coffee room: “It figures, eh? And I’m pretty sure that was Richard Dawkins I saw passing out free copies of Behe’s A Mousetrap for Darwin on the Toronto subway.” Read More ›