Replies

What I meant by “evolution itself” is speciation- the process of new species being engendered by existing species.

IS it really controversial to say that new species form from existing species?

Humans cultivated fruits and grains, with the current cultivars barely resembling the original species (e.g. the original maize was a perennial with relatively low yields, the original brassica was like rape, and the modern cultivars such as broccoli, cabbage, brussels sprouts, etc- weren’t naturally occurring). Humans domesticated wolves into dogs, aurochs into cows.

Is the controversy one of whether humans evolved directly from primates?

Or is it whether there was a divinely-driven (or otherwise unexplainable) progression of species?

It’s one thing to doubt evolution, but anyone with scientific inclinations is going to ask, “what happened, then?”

OK. Still, Darwin's idea of natural selection is meant to explain "speciation." He uses propagation as an example as you did.

But maybe it is a good idea to understand what happened by separating Darwinism from speciation. So that "by itself" = understanding apart from Darwin. After all, whatever happened didn't need Darwin. His theory of natural selection is an experiential explanation , not a causative agent. Thanks for your response. I don't mind making these distinctions--they help me understand.

“What I meant by “evolution itself” is speciation- the process of new species being engendered by existing species.”

Thanks. Darwin’s book, and theory, was about speciation by natural selection.

Name of the book is On the Origin of Species.