I don't know how you can say that. Darwin knew nothing of DNA and little of genetics (much less epigenetics). He was mistaken in his idea of how traits get passed on. He would have been unable to explain recessive genes, or why differences persisted rather than being bred out, or why one child might have blue eyes while the rest have brown. Plus, he was a gradualist, while current thinking includes at least some instances of more rapid change. The only way what you say is accurate is if you mean Darwin himself hasn't updated his theory. That I'll give you. Otherwise, let me quote this guy:
We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution.... the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift...Every new discovery becomes new “proof” that Darwin’s theory is correct.
Kinda like the germ theory of disease in that respect, I guess.
I do not notice a similar enthusiasm for embracing change as a matter of scientific principle in devotees of Darwin’s theory.
Oh come on. We grew up with slow, dumb gray-green dinosaurs, and now we have quick colorfully feathered ones. We used to portray transistional species like Archaeopteryx as stops on the direct line from dinosaurs to birds, but now we speak of clades and the idea of branching more than linear evolution. We're now investigating the influence of epigenetics, a field undreamed of 25 years ago.
One last thought: everything you say about the theory of evolution--well, the accurate parts, anyway--could be true, and it could still be right.
This may be a major paradigm shift to a Darwinist. But like Darwin's original theory, the Modern Synthesis evidently continues to presuppose that fundamentally natural processes that operate randomly are the drivers of biological evolution. Darwin's theory says that speciation occurs as the result of random mutation plus Natural Selection — where one must regard the "nature" doing the "selecting" as itself a random process that is co-evolving with the organisms it selectively modifies. (Wait, if selectivity is involved, then how can we say the process is "random?" If Nature is an exclusively material system, then how did Nature get "smart enuf" to make a selection? Selection involves making a choice.)
My question for the Modern Synthesist/Neo-Darwinist is: How does the interaction of two random systems evolve into highly organized and stable DNA, which is the antithesis of "random?"
Your article states that the Modern Synthesist/Neo-Darwinist postulates that "speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution."
Genetics has been smuggled in through the back door here without a word being said about how it could arise in a random process.
I don't have much of a problem with microevolution. We can observe examples of this in Nature. But macroevolution is a completely different story. To say that macroevolution is effectively the simple sum of all the microevolutions going on is, to me, completely senseless. Plus, as ever, neither Darwinist nor Neo-Darwinist theory can give any account of how the first, common ancestor came to be a living being in the first place.
So as biological science, how complete. how exhaustive is Neo-Darwinist theory?
FWIW, I continue to believe the "common ancestor" is a pipe dream....
Thanks so much for writing, Ha Ha Thats Very Logical!