Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Natural selection

New challenge to Darwinism? Further to “Scientists, shut up and …

It sounds like Louis is trying to conjure the rabbits from the hat with math around variation rather than with selection. It doesn’t work, of course, but it's a change from the usual. Read More ›

So now it’s the “creationists’” fault that Darwin’s followers can’t face facts?

In short, biologists must be wrong in thinking that there is no direction to evolution but admitting that is too controversial? So they have to keep it quiet by misrepresenting to the rest of us what “random evolution” means? Or if Kelly doesn't mean that, what DOES he mean? Read More ›

It’s Sunday morning so I get to talk about the praying mantis, right?

Ah yes, the deniable Darwin. It’s been eighteen years since I was having lunch with one of the smartest people I knew, in Toronto. He made me come back to his office to wait while he photocopied “The Deniable Darwin” for me to read. And get back to him and tell him what I thought. Read More ›

Is there no such thing as a neutral mutation? Art explains why there probably isn’t.

Laszlo Bencze: Mutations cannot create any improvement. Even the least of them will introduce some speck of damage. Let the process continue for enough generations and the host of near neutral mutations will show up as visible flaws. Read More ›

Geneticist and science philosopher Gerard M. Verschuuren asks, “Can Darwinism survive without teleology?

Either natural selection can create or it cannot. Actually, it cannot. It can only filter. In which case, Darwin’s theory, as he envisioned it, is false; the universe could not throw up that many almost-working designs accidentally. Read More ›