The modern "synthesis" is everything BUT a synthesis: it is a hotch potch of quite disparate views concerning just about everything.
Leaving aside the abject failure to account for abiogenesis and the genetic code, evolutionists are bitterly divided over the nature of evolutionary change, the mechanisms behind it and even the definition of "evolution" itself.
Darwinists have had to deal with "heresy" after heresy in respect of the established "orthodoxy" with the Saltationist controversy, the Neutralist controversy, the Directed Hypermutation controversy, the Punctuated Equilibrium controversy and the Endosymbiotic controversy. All of these theories have exposed serious flaws in the accepted scientific "wisdom".
You only need to put two palaeontologists in the same room and watch them excoriate each other over whether some African fossil is an early hominid or just an extinct ape creature.
Moreover, those who contend that speciation ( as with microorganisms) has been "observed" do so only because they stretch the definition of a species to that of a particular strain , or a particular variant is infertile and cannot breed with its own kind ( as with polyploidy in plants).
The only reason "scientists" like Dawkins are so vociferous is because they want to drown out any investigation of the facts and stifle genuine debate...and the facts indicate that the theory has some serious flaws.....
are you prepared to "accept" a theory with holes in it?
Tags: