Evolutionary Rescuing Devices Need Rescuing
Imagine my surprise when I encountered Drs. Jeff Tomkins and Jerry Bergman walking along the shore collecting genetic driftwood. We commenced discussing how proponents of muck-to-milliner evolution who patrol the internet seem to have a passel of enthusiasm but lack knowledge. The fundamentally flawed paradigm of evolution constantly needs rescuing.
In our last exciting episode, we saw that the Big Bang receives continual rescuing. (Indeed, Eric Lerner wrote The Big Bang Never Happened and advocated the unscientific plasma cosmology instead.) This post is more down to earth (heh!) as we see problems in biological evolution keeps running into trouble. The acolytes in Darwin's cult of death seem unaware that scientists are unable to fix their significant problems.
Traditional Darwinism was dragged out to Boot Hill and put in a shallow grave, but it was brought back through some rearrangements and additions. This was called neo-Darwinism, or the neo-Darwin Synthesis. (Many folks still keep it short by referring to it as Darwinism because we expect them to understand that we are still talking about universal common ancestor evolution.) Even with all of this argle-bargle, some scientists realized that evolutionary concepts simply do not work.
Various alternatives were proposed, such as Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" (short form: a bird laid an egg and something else hatched), which was revised by Stephen Jay Gould as punctuated equilibrium. Since Darwinism had no evidence, they proposed other ideas that had no evidence. This is called logic. See how secular science works?
Riding a more traditional trail, some mavericks still admitted lack of evidence and proposed the Third Way. Another effort was the Neutral Model. One thing the sudden appearance conjecture and those other two models have in common is that they are attempts to deny the Creator his due. They also ignore the fact that evidence supports recent creation, not any form of something evolving into something else entirely.
In our last exciting episode, we saw that the Big Bang receives continual rescuing. (Indeed, Eric Lerner wrote The Big Bang Never Happened and advocated the unscientific plasma cosmology instead.) This post is more down to earth (heh!) as we see problems in biological evolution keeps running into trouble. The acolytes in Darwin's cult of death seem unaware that scientists are unable to fix their significant problems.
Traditional Darwinism was dragged out to Boot Hill and put in a shallow grave, but it was brought back through some rearrangements and additions. This was called neo-Darwinism, or the neo-Darwin Synthesis. (Many folks still keep it short by referring to it as Darwinism because we expect them to understand that we are still talking about universal common ancestor evolution.) Even with all of this argle-bargle, some scientists realized that evolutionary concepts simply do not work.
Various alternatives were proposed, such as Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" (short form: a bird laid an egg and something else hatched), which was revised by Stephen Jay Gould as punctuated equilibrium. Since Darwinism had no evidence, they proposed other ideas that had no evidence. This is called logic. See how secular science works?
Riding a more traditional trail, some mavericks still admitted lack of evidence and proposed the Third Way. Another effort was the Neutral Model. One thing the sudden appearance conjecture and those other two models have in common is that they are attempts to deny the Creator his due. They also ignore the fact that evidence supports recent creation, not any form of something evolving into something else entirely.
Because of grievous deficiencies in the standard neo-Darwinian Model of evolution, which is largely selection driven, scientists proposed an alternative postulate called the ‘Neutral Model’ in the late 1960s. The Neutral Model is also mutation driven, but selection is deemed to be an insignificant force of change. Instead, random genetic drift is alleged to be the main driver. Since its inception, the Neutral Model has come to be incorporated in many theoretical evolutionary scenarios at some level. However, due to numerous discoveries in genomics and genome function, the Neutral Model has also become deficient, prompting a new move in science called the ‘Extended Evolutionary Synthesis’ or ‘The Third Way’, which takes a position of blissful ignorance and offers nothing tangible to extend or support evolutionary theory. While Third Way proponents recognize the deficiency of all popular evolutionary models, they maintain that more research is needed to elucidate unknown evolutionary mechanisms and processes despite the fact that the progress of scientific discovery is revealing nothing but unimaginable complexity.To read the rest of this rather technical article by Drs. Tomkins and Bergman, click on "Neutral Model, genetic drift and the Third Way—a synopsis of the self-inflicted demise of the evolutionary paradigm".