The two main postulates of evolution are:
1. Natural Selection
2. Diversity of Species
The first talks about the process of evolution in how genes are passed on. The second talks about what we observe as a result of that process.
There are more theories that are as plausible as the untenable darwinian theory
Mopac, I must say I respect you for asking questions on this topic, it is VERY refreshing to see that here rather than the usual faith based denials. Keep at it and you'll do very well! Kudos!
They've all been refuted as having the problem of not being able to explain certain aspects of species that evolution can explain. Sorry.non-darwinian evolution
I am doing no such thing and there isn't anything I've said to lead to that conclusion, hence you're just making that up.If you're attempting to target Theists why is this in the science forum? If you wish to argue this against creation then you will have to show how evolution is not compatible with the PROCESS of creating things. That is precisely what creation means, it's a process.
the untenable darwinian theory
What is the scientific process that goes into determining how old something is?
How does the scientific process play in observing the evolutionary change of species?
Non-darwinian theories of evolution don't deny that evolution occurred (assuming that we are talking about proposed scientific theories, not religious ones like ID), they just propose that natural selection is not the primary driver.Probably the most widespread non-darwinian theory today is the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which holds that most mutations are neutral, therefore most evolution at the molecular level is the result of genetic drift rather than natural selection. Even proponents of the neutral theory, however, concede that at the macro level natural selection is paramount.Lamarckism is making a bit of a comeback too, due to recent discoveries in epigenetics, although not in its original form. In fact, it is probably inaccurate to call it Lamarckism, since most serious proponents view it as working in tandem with, or on top of, natural selection.
They've all been refuted as having the problem of not being able to explain certain aspects of species that evolution can explain. Sorry.
Well, the genetic evidence is number 2. Lets do number 1 first.
Sure, there are tons of textbooks and online resources on this subject. It makes it real easy for someone to defer to another authority and pretend they understand something. I am more interested in this topic being educational.