In
Message 92 I expressed my opinion that the traditional neo-Darwinist account of evolution is one that many people, not just creationists, find implausible. Parasomnium has answered this in
Message 97 (same thread). This current topic is intended to provide a place where I can continue this debate with Parasomnium and others, since it would take the earlier thread off topic if continued there.
Parasomnium nicely summarized the neo-Darwinian position I was criticizing, with
Not wishing to blow my own horn, I must say I find nothing more plausible than the fact that, if hereditary information randomly changes, which is a fact, and if the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact, then the adaptive changes are preserved at the expense of the less well adapted. A long cumulation of these changes naturally leads to extremely well adapted, very complex structures.
That's the account I find problematic. It is roughly the same as the "Selfish Gene" account popularized by Dawkins. While I find that account problematic, I do not question that evolution occurred. I just want a better formulation than that of traditional neo-Darwinism.
This topic is for discussing the problems with that particular neo-Darwinian account. It is not for arguing whether evolution happened or is happening.
™ Version 4.2