Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution

the superefficiency actually traps bacteria in a situation where their genomes can’t grow any bigger—they are allowed just enough to survive.

As valuable as they might be in describing necessary conditions for the success of some evolutionary strategies, economic theories are nowhere near sufficient to explain how complex molecular machinery arose.

What amount of change in biological classification might have resulted from such searing selection? Some of the descendants might have differed from the ancestor in its domain of life or formed a new kingdom, or perhaps a novel phylum, class, or order. Yet none of those appeared.

millions of years of selection have left the finches very, very close to where they started.

I had been led to believe in Darwin’s theory not because of strong evidence for it. Rather, it was for sociological reasons—that simply was the way educated people were expected to think these days.

It’s strange but true that to a very large degree Charles Darwin insisted the variation that fed natural selection be completely random not because of any actual scientific evidence it could suffice, but because of the theological argument from evil.

The more uncertain the starting assumptions and the longer the term it tries to account for, the less reliable the model. Those caveats should be kept in mind for all computer studies of evolution.

I have no answer to the problem of how the mind affects the body or the reverse, but denying your mind because you can’t solve a problem is like cutting off your head to cure a headache.

The claim that Darwin’s theory explains life is like the claim that an illiterate who doesn’t know that u follows q authored Romeo and Juliet.