Theories of evolution

There are a number of theories of evolution. In 2000, scientist Simon Conway Morris wrote in the peer reviewed science journal Cell: "When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd."[1]

## Contents

* 1 Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis
* 2 Theories of evolution employing methodological naturalism
* 2.1 Current naturalistic theories of evolution
* 2.2 Past naturalistic theories of evolution
* 3 Non-naturalistic theories of evolution
* 4 Creation science commentary on the various naturalistic theories of evolution
* 5 Evolutionary Paradigm - Karl Popper Commentary
* 6 Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity
* 7 See also
* 8 External links
* 9 References

## Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis[edit]

See also: Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis and Theory of evolution and little consensus

One of the more popular evolutionary paradigms among evolutionary scientists is the modern evolutionary synthesis. The modern evolutionary synthesis is a school of evolutionary thought which incorporates the concepts of natural selection, mutations, and studies in population genetics.[2]

In 2005, the philosopher of science and atheist Massimo Pigliucci, who is a staunch opponent of creationism, in a book review for the prestigious science journal Nature, wrote: "The clamour to revise neo-darwinism is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."[3] In July 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi wrote in the prestigious science journal Science: "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."[4]

## Theories of evolution employing methodological naturalism[edit]

Some of the more notable naturalistic theories of the evolution which employ or have employed the concept of methodological naturalism are the following:

### Current naturalistic theories of evolution[edit]

* Modern evolutionary synthesis which incorporates the concept of phyletic gradualism

* Punctuated equilibrium (Originally incorporated saltationism but later was declared merely complementary to phyletic gradualism)[5][6]

* Third way of evolution

* Lamarckianism[7]

* Symbiogenesis[8]

* Neutral theory of molecular evolution

* Nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution

Richard Goldschmidt

### Past naturalistic theories of evolution[edit]

* Quantum evolution[9]

* Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory

* Zoogenesis

* Emication

* Orthogenesis[10]

* Pangenesis[11]

* Charles Darwin's theory of evolution (The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed).[12][13]

## Non-naturalistic theories of evolution[edit]

Below are some non-naturalistic theories of evolution which do not strictly apply the ideology of methodological naturalism:

* Theistic evolution

* Creative evolution[14]

## Creation science commentary on the various naturalistic theories of evolution[edit]

The prominent creation scientist Creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati wrote concerning the various theories of evolution:

“  |  ...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution saltationism (and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all![15] |  ”

|
|

Karl Popper

## Evolutionary Paradigm - Karl Popper Commentary[edit]

For more information please see: Falsifiability of evolution

Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,[16] stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."[17] Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse stated the following regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[18]

The Swedish cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".[19][20]

## Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity[edit]

In recent times, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasingly and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.[21] For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.[22] Yet, there is not any real evidence for the evolutionary paradigm. Many atheists quote the "evidence" of fossils to back up their beliefs - but their argument falls down at the obvious flaw that a bunch of rocks and stones cannot provide strong proof for anything.

## See also[edit]

* Evolution as a secular origins myth
* Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎
* Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality
* Atheism and deception

## External links[edit]

* The Century-and-a-half failure in the quest of new genetic information by Jerry Bergman

## References[edit]

1. ↑ Morris, Simon Conway (2000-01-07). Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold. Cell. Elsevier. DOI:10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81679-7. Retrieved on 2015-08-31.
2. ↑ https://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days
3. ↑ http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi
4. ↑ http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi
5. ↑ Ernst Mayr, 1982a. Speciation and macroevolution. Evolution 36, page 1128
6. ↑ https://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age
7. ↑
* Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated? by Creation Ministries International
* Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information by Creation Ministries International
8. ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
9. ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
10. ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
11. ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
12. ↑ Russell Grigg, Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!
13. ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf
14. ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
15. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
16. ↑
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524
17. ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html
18. ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html
19. ↑ Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur
20. ↑ http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html
21. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0612school-year.asp
22. ↑ https://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html