Neo-Darwinism has no theory of the generative

 

Divinely Designed

@DivinelyDesined

Honest scientists admit that the classical mechanisms of evolutionary theory (mutation + selection) lack generative power. They cannot originate the novel forms, structures, and information necessary for life’s diversity. Denis Noble (Oxford physiologist, Fellow of the Royal Society): “The honest response… is to say that the central tenets of neo-Darwinism are no longer valid.” He has also repeatedly stated in interviews through 2024-2025, that “Neo-Darwinism is dead.” Gerd B. Müller and Stuart A. Newman (evolutionary developmental biologists): “Neo-Darwinism has no theory of the generative.” Gerd Müller also is rather (in?)famous for a quote from the 2016 Royal Society meeting where he wrote that the Modern Synthesis “lacks a theory of organization that can account for the characteristic features of phenotypic evolution, such as novelty, modularity, homology, homoplasy or the origin of lineage-defining body plans.” James A. Shapiro (University of Chicago, molecular biologist): “Selection operates as a purifying but not a creative force.” In his 2011 book, “Evolution: A View from the 21st Century” he explicitly presents natural selection as a purifying force, and not a creative force. He argues that traditional Neo-Darwinian mechanisms are insufficient for generating true biological novelty. Selection only weeds out or preserves what already exists; it does not invent new structures. Lynn Margulis (National Academy of Sciences, endosymbiosis pioneer): “I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change - led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” Andreas Wagner (University of Zurich, evolutionary systems biologist): “Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance about it.” All these scientists are still evolutionists; they believe evolution is the cause of Life's great diversity. But they're not shy in admitting the massive explanatory shortfalls of this failing theory. They are admitting that the standard mutation + selection story does not explain how novel body plans, molecular machines, functional information, or major increases in complexity first appear. They are explicitly pointing out that gap that so many evolutionists want to pretend doesn't exist. And here is the key point to build on all that: rather than closing that gap, subsequent research shows it continues to widen. The Theory of Evolution is a failing theory. It has been for a long time.