- Joined
- May 2, 2012
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Bathurst NSW Australia
- Website
- www.peshatbooks.com
Yes, I know, this is a most contentious issue, but it is interesting to see that evolutionists are still not able to demonstrate the fundamentals of the variation-selection mechanisms of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Just to be clear, herein I refer to the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) - that all life on earth arose from a single common ancestor that itself arose from an inorganic form.
More and more evolutionists are admitting that random mutation and natural selection are unable to account for the theory, and are hypothesising other mechanisms such as DPMs (Dynamical Patterning Modules, DTFs (Developmental Transcription Factors), self-organisation, epigenic inheritance, endogenous variables, niche inheritance, form theory, physico-genetic determinants, fitness landscapes, preformationism, and so forth. There is much talk of a shift from the current gene-centred perspective of evolution to the non-centrality of the gene.
In essence, these evolution believing scientists are clinging to the theory without having a clue as to how it could have happened. Whether or not one believes in it, it must be obvious that it is far from proven.
More and more evolutionists are admitting that random mutation and natural selection are unable to account for the theory, and are hypothesising other mechanisms such as DPMs (Dynamical Patterning Modules, DTFs (Developmental Transcription Factors), self-organisation, epigenic inheritance, endogenous variables, niche inheritance, form theory, physico-genetic determinants, fitness landscapes, preformationism, and so forth. There is much talk of a shift from the current gene-centred perspective of evolution to the non-centrality of the gene.
In essence, these evolution believing scientists are clinging to the theory without having a clue as to how it could have happened. Whether or not one believes in it, it must be obvious that it is far from proven.