[Heartlander]

You are correct, neo-Darwinism is fundamentally dumb luck (random mutations) and death (natural selection) along with ‘after-the-fact’ stories. A sad example of this biased story telling can be found here:

ARE CONSERVATIVES HUMAN? EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND POLITICAL BELIEF

ABSTRACT: …If political belief is, as recent twin studies suggest, genetically rooted, it is also physiological. It pertains, therefore, to the realm of evolutionary biology and must serve an adaptive function. I argue that the traits associated with conservatism would have been more adaptive in early human history, while the traits associated with liberals served an adaptive function as humans formed large settled communities requiring more cooperative behavior.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

You are correct, neo-Darwinism is fundamentally dumb luck (random mutations) and death (natural selection) along with ‘after-the-fact’ stories. A sad example of this biased story telling can be found here:

You do realize that the person you're quoting is not a scientist but a novelist and writing teacher in a university's Department of Film and Media Arts, right?

[Moseley]

neo-Darwinism is fundamentally dumb luck (random mutations)

The fundamental "engine" of evolution is (a) unproven and (b) impossible.

Dumb luck cannot create either (1) different but equal species, (2) better species (whatever criteria you assign to "better") or (3) more complex / more advanced species involving increased and continually increasing levels of information (complexity).

The #1 fundamental reason why evolutionary "dumb luck" cannot create an equal or better species is because the complexity of biology is VASTLY -- GIGANTICALLY -- MORE COMPLEX than what evolutionists are imagining.

The leap from one tiny change to the next is HUGE, not the minor little baby step imagined.

And the massive complexity of biologic organisms means that a change to a VIABLE alternative is mind-bogglingly daunting.

There are so many hundreds if not thousands of ways that even a single cell organism can go wrong, that dumb luck is fundamentally impossible as an engine for species change.

If any one of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of activities are not all SIMULTANEOUSLY operating properly, the cell dies.

Change ONE of those tens or hundreds of thousands of functions -- just one -- and the cell or animal dies.

And then the only way "dumb luck" can work is when it is NOT dumb luck at all, but us reading the END of the story and superimposing hindsight on to what we imagine to be dumb luck.