Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Natural Selection Doesn’t Help, Gradualism is Out, and so is Evolution

arroba Email

When Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution one of the main objections was that he had no credible explanation for how biology, with its many designs and intricacies, could have arisen on its own. Darwin’s main argument, for which he presented many powerful evidences, was that biology did not appear to be designed. From its different patterns to its inefficiencies, the design perspective seemed to be badly failing. But this leaves us with evolution in name only. What were the details? How did the world of biology arise on its own? Inefficient or not, biology nonetheless was not trivial. How could it have evolved?  Read more

Somewhere, I don't recall just where, Elizabeth stated quite emphatically that selection does not operate at the level of the gene, but rather at the level of the entire organism or phenotype. This is typical of the shell game that Darwinists play.
Does natural selection act primarily on individual organisms, on groups, on genes, or on whole species? The question of levels of selection - on which biologists and philosophers have long disagreed - is central to evolutionary theory and to the philosophy of biology. - Evolution and the Levels of Selection
Selection operates on whatever level you need it to. Mung
Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/ "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. bornagain77
Any objective, critical analysis of mutation/natural selection in the field arguably shows us neo-Darwinism has been falsified if neo-Darwinism is defined as explaining everything from a trilobite to Beethoven from gradual, incremental changes incurring solely by mut/sel. The e-coli generations observed vs. the distinct timelines in nature between fossil changes illustrates this. The har-1 gene does this. The other mechanisms proposed drift etc, i would think would be hard to classify as neo-darwinismesque. junkdnaforlife
The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Gradualistic evolution — the test that Darwin himself set forth — or non gradualistic evolution, it does not matter. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative.
Great article. Mung
Their [protein] designs are not very flexible. They cannot tolerate many mutations, and this means evolving a gene from scratch is not feasible, as it was once thought.
You see. Poor design. With Evolution you would expect this. Mung

Leave a Reply