[gondramB]

>>Your analogy fails. Darwin’s theory of natural selection is the basis of biological evolutionary thinking today. The mechanisms and examples may be debated by evolutionists but natural selection is still the underpinning of Darwin’s theory of evolution and of biological evolutionary theory today.<<

Darwin didn’t even know about electrons or genetics, much less DNA. Do we build on Darwin’s work the same way we build on other great scientists? You bet. But to equate developmental biology with Darwinism is to be 80 years out of date.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Darwin didn’t even know about electrons or genetics, much less DNA. Do we build on Darwin’s work the same way we build on other great scientists? You bet. But to equate developmental biology with Darwinism is to be 80 years out of date.

I take it that you agree that the particular principle of Darwin's that I mentioned above is false and transparently idiotic. Unfortunately his whole subsequent reasoning was based on it. But even if we expunge Darwin from evolution, it does not solve the problem because, you see, Ernst Mayr (a Darwin Medalist) repeats the very same principle in 2001.

[count-your-change]

No Darwin didn't know of genes but he did know of animal breeding and humans selecting the traits in stock they found useful.
Natural selection theory makes evolution the guiding hand and continued reproduction the useful goal.

Darwinism, the principles he set forth, is the basis for whatever the latest PC terms for evolution are. Natural selection, adaptation, formation of new species by population isolation, ring species formation, whatever is what modern day evolutionary theory is based on Darwin's ideas or can we remove these and have anything left?

Developmental biology differs from the above in what way?