Theories of evolution - Revision history

Conservative at 20:59, March 9, 2024

2024-03-09T20:59:54Z

Conservative at 04:22, July 23, 2023

2023-07-23T04:22:30Z

DavidB4-bot: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://creation.com → https://creation.com (12), http://www.pbs.org → https://www.pbs.org

2019-04-09T22:57:02Z

HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://creation.com → https://creation.com (12), http://www.pbs.org → https://www.pbs.org

DavidB4-bot: Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: prestigous → prestigious

2016-09-09T21:44:44Z

Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: prestigous → prestigious

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T20:28:45Z

clean up & uniformity

Conservative: /* Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis */

2016-05-27T12:05:37Z

Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis

Matt Fitzpatrick: intro: repairing dead link to ref on sciencedirect.com

2015-08-31T01:44:14Z

intro: repairing dead link to ref on sciencedirect.com

Conservative: /* Current naturalistic theories of evolution */

2014-09-23T08:16:22Z

Current naturalistic theories of evolution

Conservative: /* Current naturalistic theories of evolution */

2014-09-23T07:24:12Z

Current naturalistic theories of evolution

Conservative: /* Current naturalistic theories of evolution */

2014-09-23T07:00:43Z

Current naturalistic theories of evolution

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, March 9, 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[Image:Evolution.jpg\|alt=evolution darwin theory\|right\|thumb\|250px\|Late in [[Charles Darwin\|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design\|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref> See also: [https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]]
	There are a number of '''theories of evolution'''. In 2000, scientist Simon Conway Morris wrote in the peer reviewed [[science]] journal ''Cell'': "When discussing organic [[evolution]] the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd."<ref>{{cite web \|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867400816797 \|title=Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold \|accessdate=2015-08-31 \|last=Morris \|first=Simon Conway \|date=2000-01-07 \|work=Cell \|publisher=Elsevier \|doi=10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81679-7 }}</ref>		There are a number of '''theories of evolution'''. In 2000, scientist Simon Conway Morris wrote in the peer reviewed [[science]] journal ''Cell'': "When discussing organic [[evolution]] the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd."<ref>{{cite web \|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867400816797 \|title=Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold \|accessdate=2015-08-31 \|last=Morris \|first=Simon Conway \|date=2000-01-07 \|work=Cell \|publisher=Elsevier \|doi=10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81679-7 }}</ref>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 There are a number of '''theories of evolution'''.  In 2000, scientist Simon Conway Morris wrote in the peer reviewed [[science]] journal ''Cell'': "When discussing organic [[evolution]] the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867400816797 |title=Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold |accessdate=2015-08-31 |last=Morris |first=Simon Conway |date=2000-01-07 |work=Cell |publisher=Elsevier |doi=10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81679-7 }}</ref>
+On June 28, 2022, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?'' which indicated: "A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of [[natural selection]]."<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?''] by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian,  June 28, 2022</ref>
 ==Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis==

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ''See also:'' [[Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
-One of the more popular evolutionary paradigms among evolutionary scientists is the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]].  The '''[[modern evolutionary synthesis]]''' is a school of evolutionary thought which incorporates the concepts of natural selection, mutations, and studies in population genetics.<ref>http://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days</ref>
+One of the more popular evolutionary paradigms among evolutionary scientists is the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]].  The '''[[modern evolutionary synthesis]]''' is a school of evolutionary thought which incorporates the concepts of natural selection, mutations, and studies in population genetics.<ref>https://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days</ref>
 In 2005, the philosopher of science and [[Atheism|atheist]] Massimo Pigliucci, who is a staunch opponent of [[creationism]], in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *[[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] which incorporates the concept of [[phyletic gradualism]]
-*[[Punctuated equilibrium]] (Originally incorporated [[saltationism]] but later was declared merely complementary to [[phyletic gradualism]])<ref>Ernst Mayr, 1982a. Speciation and macroevolution. Evolution 36, page 1128</ref><ref>http://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age</ref>
+*[[Punctuated equilibrium]] (Originally incorporated [[saltationism]] but later was declared merely complementary to [[phyletic gradualism]])<ref>Ernst Mayr, 1982a. Speciation and macroevolution. Evolution 36, page 1128</ref><ref>https://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age</ref>
 *[[Third way of evolution]]
 *[[Lamarckian theory of evolution|Lamarckianism]]<ref>
-*[http://creation.com/epigenetics-and-darwin Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
+*[https://creation.com/epigenetics-and-darwin Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
-*[http://creation.com/mutations-epigenetics-information Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information] by Creation Ministries International
+*[https://creation.com/mutations-epigenetics-information Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information] by Creation Ministries International
 </ref>
-*[[Symbiogenesis]]<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>
+*[[Symbiogenesis]]<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>
 *Neutral theory of molecular evolution
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 === Past naturalistic theories of evolution ===
-*[[Quantum evolution]]<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>
+*[[Quantum evolution]]<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>
 *[[Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory]]
@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 *[[Emication]]
-*[[Orthogenesis]]<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>
+*[[Orthogenesis]]<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>
-*[[Pangenesis]]<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>
+*[[Pangenesis]]<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>
-*[[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of evolution (The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed).<ref>Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf</ref>
+*[[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of evolution (The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed).<ref>Russell Grigg, [https://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref><ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf</ref>
 ==Non-naturalistic theories of evolution==
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 *[[Theistic evolution]]
-*Creative evolution<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>
+*Creative evolution<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>
 ==Creation science commentary on the various naturalistic theories of evolution==
@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 ==Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ==
 In recent times, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasingly and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0612school-year.asp</ref>
-For example, prominent [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed in an interview with journalist [[Bill Moyers]] that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html</ref>  Yet, there is [[evolution|not any real evidence for the evolutionary paradigm]].
+For example, prominent [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed in an interview with journalist [[Bill Moyers]] that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.<ref>https://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html</ref>  Yet, there is [[evolution|not any real evidence for the evolutionary paradigm]].
 Many atheists quote the "evidence" of fossils to back up their beliefs - but their argument falls down at the obvious flaw that a bunch of rocks and stones cannot provide strong proof for anything.
@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 ==External links==
-*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf The Century-and-a-half failure in the quest of new genetic information] by [[Jerry Bergman]]
+*[https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf The Century-and-a-half failure in the quest of new genetic information] by [[Jerry Bergman]]
 ==References==

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 In 2005, the philosopher of science and [[Atheism|atheist]] Massimo Pigliucci, who is a staunch opponent of [[creationism]], in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi
-wrote in the prestigous science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref>
+wrote in the prestigious science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref>
 ==Theories of evolution employing methodological naturalism ==
@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 ==Creation science commentary on the various naturalistic theories of evolution==
 The prominent [[creation science|creation scientist]] Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote concerning the various theories of evolution:
-{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>}}
+{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] (and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>}}
 [[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 One of the more popular evolutionary paradigms among evolutionary scientists is the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]].  The '''[[modern evolutionary synthesis]]''' is a school of evolutionary thought which incorporates the concepts of natural selection, mutations, and studies in population genetics.<ref>http://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days</ref>
-In 2005, the philosopher of science and [[Atheism|atheist]] Massimo Pigliucci, who is a staunch opponent of [[creationism]], in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July of 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi
+In 2005, the philosopher of science and [[Atheism|atheist]] Massimo Pigliucci, who is a staunch opponent of [[creationism]], in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi
 wrote in the prestigous science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref>
@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 *[[Pangenesis]]<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>
-*[[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of evolution (The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed). <ref>Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf</ref>
+*[[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of evolution (The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed).<ref>Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf</ref>
 ==Non-naturalistic theories of evolution==
@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 *[[Atheism and deception]]
-==External Links==
+==External links==
 *[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf The Century-and-a-half failure in the quest of new genetic information] by [[Jerry Bergman]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:44, August 31, 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	There are a number of '''theories of evolution'''. In 2000, scientist Simon Conway Morris wrote in the peer reviewed [[science]] journal ''Cell'': "When discussing organic [[evolution]] the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd."<ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science~~?_ob~~=~~ArticleURL&_udi~~=~~B6WSN~~-~~4195FC1~~-~~1&_user~~=~~681891&_coverDate~~=01~~%2F07%2F2000&_rdoc~~=~~1&_fmt~~=~~&_orig~~=~~search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000037419&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=681891&md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7~~</ref>	+	There are a number of '''theories of evolution'''. In 2000, scientist Simon Conway Morris wrote in the peer reviewed [[science]] journal ''Cell'': "When discussing organic [[evolution]] the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd."<ref>{{cite web \|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867400816797 \|title=Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold \|accessdate=2015-08-31 \|last=Morris \|first=Simon Conway \|date=2000-01-07 \|work=Cell \|publisher=Elsevier \|doi=10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81679-7 }}</ref>

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 *[[Lamarckian theory of evolution|Lamarckianism]]<ref>
 *[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/lamarck-lives.html Lamarck lives!] by [[Vox Day]] (Anti-[[evolution]])
 *[http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong] by Oliver Burkeman, ''The Guardian'', March 18, 2010 (pro-evolution)