Darwin didn’t know much about how evolution worked, and much of what he THOUGHT he knew has turned out to be either wrong or incomplete. however, why he’s generally considered the greatest biologist in history, is that (along with Wallace) he could see for the first time that evolution is mathematically inevitable based on some simple facts:
1. per Malthus, populations unrestrained by increasing death rates grow exponentially, and eventually population growth MUST outrun food (and/or other key resource) supply.
2. in species that reproduce sexually, offspring are not just like their parents nor just like their siblings. There is *variation* in reproduction.
3. There is also *conservation* in reproduction: offspring are (statistically) more like their parents and like their siblings than their are like randomly selected members of the species at large.
4. The variation in members of a species will cause a (statistical) variance in successful reproduction rate. For example, in a simple world of foxes and rabbits, near the Mathusian limit, faster foxes will eat more rabbits and hence survive to reproduce, while slower foxes on average will be less successful at survival to the point of reproduction.
If you THINK about it, if 1, 2, 3, & 4 are true (which they are) then the inevitable logical/mathematical result is that over time the members of species will (statistically) drift towards being better suited to their environment.
THAT’S Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. And that’s about all of Darwin’s conjectures that have withstood our rapidly growing knowledge of what really is going on.
If you don’t “believe” in Darwinian evolution in that narrow sense, you don’t believe in logic (or of course you could be successful in refuting 1, 2, 3, or 4 ... good luck with that!).
>Details of how evolution works constantly changing? You mean >like Darwin said two plus two equals five but the Bible says >no, two plus two equals four.
>The Darwinist responds that its been found that two plus >three equals five so the ideas of Darwin are correct.
“THAT’S Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.”
Unfortunately, in much of religious fundamentalism drama must be inserted at every turn. You can’t simply gradations of theory. You have to have either right or wrong - though creationists can’t say things that simply, it has to be “Truth” or “Lies”.
It has to be that way, they say, or the entire Bible is wrong.
So, the Theory of Evolution has to be a “lie” - when within the realm of science there are plenty of details to debate.
Darwin has to be the worst of villains as well.
Sorry, no amount of science, reason, or logic will convince creationists. If you believe in science, then you must “worship at the temple of Darwin” and be an atheist.
That’s the way it works in the Creationist mind. It’s not about science, it’s about Fundamentalist ideology.
Malthus contention was wrong as demonstrated when human population has fallen when social mores changed and technology produced more food.
2 & 3 are irrelevant
4 To be true this over simplification would have to demonstrate that speed is an actual advantage to survival and reproduction. Increased speed may be at the cost of other very valuable traits like the example of the race horse vs. the wild mustang.
It's quite easy to look at a creature and say this or that confers an advantage and then construct an imaginary scenario that fits but it's quite another to show this to be the case.
“If you don’t “believe” in Darwinian evolution in that narrow sense, you don’t believe in logic”
An example of twisted logic. I need not not refute anything because your statements are just broad generalizations like saying the weather changes.
Thanks anyway.