Evolutionist against gradualism?

Annotated […] excerpts :

We now know that Darwin’s ‘gradualist’ view of evolution, exclusively driven by natural selection, is no longer compatible with contemporary science.

Species do not emerge from an accumulation of random genetic changes. This has been confirmed by 21st-century genome sequencing, but the idea that natural selection inadequately explains evolutionary change goes back 151 years – to Darwin himself.

One of the most significant of these alternatives [to gradualism] is symbiogenesis, the idea that evolution can operate through symbiotic relationships rather than through gradual, successive changes. [but where is the evidence for “evolution” by symbiosis?]

An absence that’s perhaps even harder to explain is why the pioneering work of the cytogeneticist Barbara McClintock, one of the giants of 20th-century genetics, has not been accepted as posing a viable alternative to dominant theories of evolution. [the simple answer is that her plants did not “evolve” – maize remained maize]

Genome modifications by transposable elements may be the best-known examples of [not] evolutionary processes that have nothing to do with the gradual accumulation of random mutations.

The origins of life are still obscure, but we assume it only happened once because all living cells have DNA genomes and use them in similar ways [… This is awful logic – obviously a requirement to continued belief in “evolution” despite all evidence]

Genomic data showed that some DNA sequences that encode proteins important to an organism’s specific ecological adaptation did not evolve gradually through small changes to DNA sequences that had been present in the organism’s ancestors.

By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses, 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration. [“evolution” does not follow from adaptation – why would it?] 

For some philosophers of science, 21st-century evolutionary biology will require rethinking all the purely mechanical physics-based assumptions they have held about life. [in other words, it was all pseudoscience. The logical conclusion being that the disproven “evolution” must be abandoned] 

Was it so hard? What’s next? Will he give up on “evolution” too? Or is that cushy job of his too much to give up? He is giving fodder to creationists as a commenter complained. Does that make him a traitor to the cause?

Here is the link

Posted in News/Books and tagged .