'Nuff said
Seems like genetics is very real. But that’s not the same as Darwinian evolution. Descent from a common ancestor? I consider that unproven and not really very useful for biology. Testing cosmetics on rabbits (for example) doesn’t depend on our “common ancestry”.
Something happened sometime.
I’m reading a book called “Evolution 2.0” by Perry Marshall, where he makes the case (all based on current scientific knowledge) that organisms down to the cell level ACTIVELY change and mutate on their own in response to changes/threats from the environment, driven by their innate desire/need to survive and thrive.
Cells even intentionally reprogram their own DNA in order to survive.
The idea that random, undirected tiny mutations is the main driver of evolution is totally debunked, as is the idea that life began as a chemical soup.
I highly recommend it. Just discovering the incredible complexity of a cell is mind blowing.
We have observable evidence of adaptation WITHIN a species.
But NO EVIDENCE of transition FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER!!!
(under the traditional definition of "species")
Then you’ll have to start excising it from the minds of people who already have an inkling of what it is. And burn at the stake anyone who has the audacity to bring it up again.
All of a sudden animals can no longer evolve due to climate change. A theory based on flawed thinking without facts. This has been the basis of leftist dogma for 60+ years and its being tossed out the window.
Some biologists might shudder at the thought of eliminating Darwinism from their scientific work.
...
Why would they care when they rarely if ever use the term Darwinism?
However, try to eliminate comparative anatomy and comparative genomics, then they would really get upset.
It takes life to make life.