Previously, punctuated equilibrium was examined as one of the major changes that has been made to the Theory of Evolution since Darwin. Neo-Darwinism is another such change. As was seen with punctuated equilibrium, this addition does little to help macro-evolution and simply highlights issues with it.
First then, the definition of Neo-Darwinism: Darwinism as modified by the findings of modern genetics, stating that mutations due to random copying errors in DNA cause variations within the population of individual organisms that natural selection acts upon these variation.
Basically, this means that genetics were found to be contrary to the original Theory of Evolution, as put down by Darwin. More specifically, modern genetics only allow for so much variation in the genetic code. Organisms cannot develop traits outside of their genetic code, so a human society could not develop gills or wings no matter under what pressures they were placed or for how long.
The macro-evolutionists answer to this blatant contradiction of Darwinism, is Neo-Darwinism, or mutations. Without information being added to the genetic code—and mutation are the only conceivable way this could happen—macro-evolution is impossible!
Onto Neo-Darwinism then. We are now expected to believe that a series of random mutations—and perhaps with the aid of gene variation, also—helped single celled organisms develop into fish, and from fish into mammals, and from mammals into apes. Take a step back and think about that.
What are some famous forms of mutations that you can think of? One practically jumps to mind: Cancer. It kills approximately 20,000 people a day. Mutations are numerous, and this is a complicated subject on its own. But it should suffice to say, that medically, mutations are generally considered malignant, like cancer and countless other diseases or illnesses.
Not to mention the fact that mutations rarely add genetic material—and when they do, they are either duplicating genetic material, or the genetic material is being taken from elsewhere, like viruses. But duplication isn’t adding new material, and viruses aren’t really adding new material either. Without new material, no advance is made.
No one is arguing the idea that mutations can’t be beneficial. But the fact that they can introduce new information that is not only beneficial, but large enough to slowly change a population of one type of organism to another type, is ludicrous on the very face of it!
Rather than go further into the subject, let it suffice to say that once again macro-evolutionists have melded the evidence to their theory. Instead of accepting the fact that genetics completely contradicts macro-evolution, they created a narrow way to continue belief. Neo-Darwinism teeters on the edge of insanity, and with it the entire theory.
For further reading, I suggest:
I will end this, with a quote from a prominent and well respected macro-evolutionist, Lynn Margulis (married to Carl Sagan):
“This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create…. [N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify and organism. 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.”