Criticizing neo-Darwinism

I'm pretty sure that evolution hasn't technically been "Darwinist" for almost 20 years, now. What's the merit in criticizing "Darwinism"?The modern theory of evolution encapsulates sexual selection, genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, and a host of other things that don't fall under the heading of "Darwinism". Perhaps it would help if you were to elucidate the ways that you find Para's account, which is marvelously simple and obviously correct, to be uncompelling to you.

This is nonsense to me. What would be the basis of an evolutionary theory besides the biology of the organisms that are evolving? Evolution is a theory of biology. Why do you believe it is wrong to appeal to biology to explain evolution?

You're still not being clear, because I don't see how that answers the question.Maybe it's best I bow out here. Apparently clear communication is not going to be possible for us.

I'm wondering why you didn't link the link, instead of a link to a wiki article that has the link.You know, people change wiki articles. Anybody at all can just rewrite the article. Maybe the next time you visit the article the link you tried to point us to won't even be there.

To the contrary, it's substantiated by a great weight of evidence. I've seen some of the evidence, and indeed performed some of the tests that prove it, myself.Faith is the province of religion. Evolution is accepted by scientists because the evidence shows that it is correct. To say that it's a "matter of faith" is to fail to understand that many of us are a lot better informed than you are.

Common descent of organisms is substantiated by molecular phylogenetics, which proves ancestral connections between species.Molecular phylogenetics is substantiated by examples of detectable co-speciation between physically proximal but evolutionarily distant species, like pocket gophers and their lice. That evidence and discussion of it is in this thread: EvC Forum: More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and GeomydoecusSince that example - and others - prove, experimentally, that molecular phylogenetic techniques return accurate information about species ancestry, we know that the general conclusion of common descent is accurate.

It's not some kind of secret, Dash, it's just another example of the huge amount of science you've simply failed to pay any attention to.The "synthesis" is nothing more than the synthesis of Darwin's original theory of common descent by modification and natural selection with the modern science of molecular genetics and what we know about random mutations.That's the synthesis. It's not some secret code word, it's just the combination of Darwin's theory from the 1800's with modern discoveries about DNA. We have everywhere else to turn. We have the entire world of biology to turn to. It's creationists like you who have a one-trick pony and nothing else to ride.