Convergence

A recent paper in the journal Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society offers some striking comments about the prevalence of discordance among phylogenetic trees.

An email correspondent says that criticizing Darwinian “evolution” and “evolutionists” is wrong-headed; not because he is a Darwinist himself.

There’s a certain insouciant ignorance that seems to go along with being an ardent Darwin enthusiast.

Conservation of information is not a difficult concept and once it is understood, it becomes clear that evolutionary processes cannot create the information required to power biological evolution.

When one’s entire interpretative framework presupposes common ancestry at the outset, it is no wonder that any and every observation is taken as supportive of that paradigm.

Our recent book Science and Human Origins has caught the attention of a number of evolutionary bloggers.

A few months back I gave my top three criticisms of Darwinian evolution that I think should be taught in public schools.

A few weeks ago, Jonathan M. had an excellent article on ENV about the failure of the TalkOrigins Archive to defend Darwinian explanations of the Cambrian explosion.

The GULO pseudogene may or may not turn out to harbor some sort of function.

Richard Lenski has acquired a challenger for the title of “Best Experimental Evolutionary Scientist.”

When the biogeographical data does not fit with the predictions and expectations of common descent, one always has “oceanic dispersal” at the ready to serve as an ad hoc fudge factor — including the rather remarkable claim that monkeys made it across the Atlantic from Africa to … » Go

The argument from evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development is probably one of the stronger for common descent. But I’m not convinced.