Difference between revisions of "Third way of evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Many evolutionary biologists are very dissatisfied with the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (also known as Neo-Darwinism (see:  
+
Many evolutionary biologists are very dissatisfied with the [[Modern Evolutionary Synthesis]] (also known as [[Neo-Darwinism]] (see: [[Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]]), but they refuse to accept biblical [[creation]].
  
−
A group of evolutionary biologist who are dissatisfied with the Modern evolutionary synthesis school of evolutionary thought have formed a "third way" school of evolutionary thought which they describe as follows:
+
A group of evolutionary biologists who are dissatisfied with the Modern evolutionary synthesis school of evolutionary thought have formed a "third way" school of evolutionary thought which they describe as follows:
 
The [[DNA]] record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations...
 
The [[DNA]] record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations...
  

Revision as of 06:16, September 23, 2014

Many evolutionary biologists are very dissatisfied with the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (also known as Neo-Darwinism (see: Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis), but they refuse to accept biblical creation.

A group of evolutionary biologists who are dissatisfied with the Modern evolutionary synthesis school of evolutionary thought have formed a "third way" school of evolutionary thought which they describe as follows: The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations...

Many see evolution as a complex process with distinct mechanisms and stages rather than a phenomenon explainable by a small number of principles. The divergences and multiplicity of ideas, opinions and theories on this website are necessary since many fields of evolutionary biology remain relatively unexplored...

There is a need for a more open “third way” of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations.[1]}}

See also