> It is a very grave mistake to equate evolution
> with Darwinism.
> 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
> 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
> if you use Shannon's formula.