There are many different theories of biological evolution. I am for instance
an evolutionist but not a Darwinist, which implies believing that biological
species are products of a sequence of random mutations in the DNA.
Other evolutionists who are not Darwinists are for instance Jean-Baptiste
Lamarck, who now is getting a revival through epigenetics and Richard Owen.
Evolutionism cannot be equated with Darwinism even if its proponents
although try to make it seem this way.
Darwinism has not withstood any of the experimental tests that you might place
on it as far as I know, and I do not know what you are basing such a statement of.
Just as an example, Herman Muller who studied mutations in fruit flies (and got a
Nobel price for this) found that these increased as a result of X-rays. However,
these mutations did not generate new species or a process of evolution in the fruit flies,
which the Darwinist theory would have predicted. In reality, the entire fossil record of
paleontology does not support the Darwinist idea of slow and gradual change,
but of dramatic bursts of new species and large extinctions quite in contrast to
what the Darwinist theory predicts.
This is not the place to have a deep scientific discussion about how evolution actually takes
place or what the other factors are. If you are seriously interested in this I recommend my books.
Incidentally, the difference in information content of 10^50 is not just made up. It is what you get
if you compare the information content of DNA and that of the knitting pattern of cells in our bodies
if you use Shannon's formula.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17-Aug-21 16:24 by cjcalleman.