The second revolution gave rise to the modern synthesis.
Molecular biology explained how the basis of heredity in all species is encoded in molecules of DNA made of just four basic constituents.*
In the first revolution, Darwin tells us that the origin of species, the diversity of all life on earth came from some warm little pond. This was possible because of natural selection. It was quickly discovered that natural selection (the fittest survive) could not have created all the new forms of life. At best it only acted on existing forms of life. No one knew what natural selection was acting on.
Is this a problem for natural selection? No, not in Darwinian Fizzbin. Darwinists are committed to this game and the rules can be change and distorted in every which way to make Darwinism win. The Darwinists’ response would be “This is how science work. Knowledge is built incrementally and as science advances the gaps in our knowledge are filled.” The problem with that argument is that it is a Fizzbin misdirection. Any good theory must be falsifiable. Darwin’s theory was already been falsified. Natural selection does not create new forms. It only acts on existing forms. Never forget that Darwin’s theory of natural selection does not create legs on that fish to walk out of the water. Once this is realized the entire conclusion of common ancestry through Darwinian evolution should have collapsed.
Never fear, neo-Darwinian synthesis is here to the rescue. Never mind that Darwinian evolution was wrong, we just shifted the aim and now we have small-inherited genetic variations. These cumulated variation combined with natural selection will create new forms. There is just one small problem. Neo-Darwinism like its’ predecessor has absolutely zero, none, nil, zilch evidence of selective pressure for natural selection to operate until in recent geological time. There is no selective pressure, if there is no predation, over population, limited resources and geographical and environmental constraints. Darwinian evolution has asserted these conditions during each of the alleged macroevolutionary transition but there is no direct evidence of such conditions
The truth to the matter is that genetic mutation occurs whether natural selection is in effect or not. In that respect, maybe the diversity of all life on earth is due to these genetic mutations? The first problem is that most changes that affects how an organism functions is harmful to that organism. The second problem is that even if the change is not harmful, how do we know that it is advantageous? It is only advantageous if we can frame the conditions of the system. Ken Miller use the example of the one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind. This is only true if the land has light and light is of significance to the people of the land. In Darwinian evolution it requires differential survival, where the fittest out competes with the less fit. The counter analogy might be in the land of the plenty famine is extinct.
Are there genetic mutations that would confer a survival advantage to an organism? Of Course. Consider the antibiotic resistant bacteria. In a random population of bacteria where antibiotics are introduce, it is possible for individual bacteria to develop a resistance to the antibiotic. The problem with this type of examples that Darwinists uses is that it is an example of microevolution and not macroevolution.
The second revolution of neo-Darwinian synthesis was supposed to give us the answer to how new forms are created. It was suppose to finally give us the answer to Darwin’s common descent and the diversity of all life on earth. Neo-Darwinism is also a falsified theory. Not only is neo-Darwinism unable to demonstrate empirically how new forms are created, all experiments that attempted to accelerate the mutations in the genes of an organism has shown to be anti-Darwinian. Attempts to alter bacteria stayed as bacteria and fruit flies are still fruit flies. They may become deformed and died, but they remain as the originating organism. In other word, it has been impossible to change a fruit fly into a bird or a cow into a giraffe like animal. There is no reason for anyone to believe the Darwinian evolutionary icon of evolving a fox size land mammal into a whale.
It doesn’t matter how many times the Darwinian theory has been falsified. Darwinists like Carroll will even admit that Darwinian evolution has been a failure to explain macroevolution (the creation of new forms). Darwinism cannot lose because it is played by the Fizzbin rules. Darwinism is still very much a fact like gravity is a fact. The only difference between the two is that anyone can test gravity by holding out an object, release it and watch it fall toward the ground. Darwinian evolution on the other hand, you will just have to take the words of the Darwinists for it.
In the next post I will discuss Carroll’s third revolution evo-devo, is this the great evolutionary hope that Darwinists are waiting for? We shall see.