Changes

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>

==Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis==

==Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis==

''See also:'' [[Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]

''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, Massimo Pigliucci, 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>

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 ==

==Theories of evolution employing methodological naturalism ==

*[[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] which incorporates the concept of [[phyletic gradualism]]

*[[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>

 

 

</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

*Neutral theory of molecular evolution

=== Past naturalistic theories of evolution ===

=== 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]]

*[[Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory]]

*[[Zoogenesis]]

*[[Zoogenesis]]

*[[Emication]]

*[[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==

==Non-naturalistic theories of evolution==

*[[Theistic evolution]]   

*[[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==

==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:

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]]]]

[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]

==Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ==

==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>

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.

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.

*[[Atheism and deception]]

*[[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]]

*[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==

==References==