I have been reading a Non-Darwinian evolution website recently called Take On Darwin. One of the authors posted this:
Take on Darwin
DARWINISM
Darwinism is a fairy story; to accept it you have to believe in magic.
Natural selection isn't a force, it's more like friction; it's offers a little resistance to the flow of harmful mutations entering the gene pool.
How efficient is natural selection at eliminating harmful mutations? 100% would involve magic. Anything less would involve extinction. Likely value 1-2%
.So where's the mechanism?
Darwin didn't discover evolution, he merely dumbed it down so natural selection could account for it.
Natural selection can't account for the origin of species, all it could lead to is all creatures varying gradually within a single species.
ADAPTATION
Add a stone and a kitten to a pile of stones. Which is better adapted to its environment? Does adaptation mean anything?
Evolution is living creatures becoming more independent of, not more adapted to, their environment.
Is the Internet us "adapting" to electricity? Is symbiosis "adaptation" to the environment?
Adaptation is the lowest common denominator of all possible mechanisms of evolution. What would distinguish the best mechanism from all the others?
Adapting living creatures to their environment is the least you can ask of evolution. Shouldn't we ask more?
MUTATION
Mutation followed by natural selection is like saying you can make a big mountain out of a small mountain just by shaking it. But avalanches make a mountain smaller, not bigger.
You can't evolve new living creatures just by damaging the old ones.
Beneficial mutations are like unicorns: Everyone's heard of them but no one's ever seen one.
If something other than mutation was what made changes to genes beneficial, how could you tell?
What do you think about this? Does he have a valid case?
Take on Darwin
DARWINISM
Darwinism is a fairy story; to accept it you have to believe in magic.
Natural selection isn't a force, it's more like friction; it's offers a little resistance to the flow of harmful mutations entering the gene pool.
How efficient is natural selection at eliminating harmful mutations? 100% would involve magic. Anything less would involve extinction. Likely value 1-2%
.So where's the mechanism?
Darwin didn't discover evolution, he merely dumbed it down so natural selection could account for it.
Natural selection can't account for the origin of species, all it could lead to is all creatures varying gradually within a single species.
ADAPTATION
Add a stone and a kitten to a pile of stones. Which is better adapted to its environment? Does adaptation mean anything?
Evolution is living creatures becoming more independent of, not more adapted to, their environment.
Is the Internet us "adapting" to electricity? Is symbiosis "adaptation" to the environment?
Adaptation is the lowest common denominator of all possible mechanisms of evolution. What would distinguish the best mechanism from all the others?
Adapting living creatures to their environment is the least you can ask of evolution. Shouldn't we ask more?
MUTATION
Mutation followed by natural selection is like saying you can make a big mountain out of a small mountain just by shaking it. But avalanches make a mountain smaller, not bigger.
You can't evolve new living creatures just by damaging the old ones.
Beneficial mutations are like unicorns: Everyone's heard of them but no one's ever seen one.
If something other than mutation was what made changes to genes beneficial, how could you tell?
What do you think about this? Does he have a valid case?