We've seen these pictures in the history books. And Darwin's theory argued that organisms gradually evolved through a process called natural selection. In natural selection, organisms with genetic variations that suit their environment tend to propagate more descendants than organisms of the same species that lack the variation, thus influencing the overall genetic makeup of the species.

And Darwin's theory argued that organisms gradually evolve through a process called natural selection and natural selection. Organisms with genetic variations that suit their environment tend to propagate more descendants than organisms of the same species that lack the variation thus influencing the overall genetic makeup of the species.

Twenty years before Darwin wrote anything about natural selection, we see all the elements of the concept in Blythe's writings. He says, there would almost seem in some species to be a tendency in every separate family to some particular kind of deviation.

And so Darwin thought that racism was evidence for his theory. Interestingly, after Darwin's time, Darwinists were going to sort switch things around. Once Darwinism became the established theory, Darwinists were in fact going to say the opposite.

In fact, the other book, The Darwin Effect, which I also carry this through, Darwinism Corrodes Morality

And it looks like, hey, look, Darwinian evolution works. Keep the best, toss the rest. There is a problem, however, that Darwin and a lot of evolutionary biologists haven't considered, except the few elite who really are thoughtful.

Modern science has now shown us that Darwin's single best evidence for evolution, Darwin's finches, never really actually supported Darwin's ideas for evolution. Modern studies have tracked over a thousand finches that lived in either rural or urban environments to determine how and why their beak sizes and shapes would differ based on where they lived.

So Darwinian evolution, it's called Darwinian because of Charles Darwin who was the one who proposed the theory. And evolution in its original term, which has changed over time, by natural selection and random mutation.

In his book. Darwin's Black Box. He came up with what I think is the best. Argument against Darwinism. From a scientific perspective. And it's still challenged today by atheists. They try to find a way around it.

It is not a wonder which at first strikes the body but rather after reflection the eye of reason and so who for Darwin, whose reason right because he's not starting with a biblical worldview for him it was really man apart from God and so he went on to say, he said through the whole throughout the whole group of islands every single atom, even from the most minute particle to large fragments of rocks bear the mark stamp of ones having been subjected to the power of organic arrangement and so again for him it was the, the power of organic arrangement, the power of nature, right, versus really the power of God and biographers of Darwin said gradually during the voyage not by any Eureka revelation Darwin synthesized all that he had seen with what he had read and discussed with others and out of this mix began to see a natural explanation for the otherwise mysterious birth or appearance of new species and so obviously again they're saying a natural explanation this is what Darwin was seeing for how these things appeared.

Are you talking about adaptation, genetic variation? Are you talking about natural selection? Are you talking about Darwinian, goo to the zoo to you?

Now in the modern context, in the modern neo -Darwinian micromutational theory, the idea is that natural selection, which is the idea, again, that there are pressures upon populations, and if you have the genetics that allows you to be a little bit less noticeable to your predators, to the things that eat you, or give you a little advantage seeing your prey, little things like that, you're gonna end up having a few more offspring in the next generation and a few more in the next and a few more in the next, and it is this natural selection working on genotypes that improves things, and then you have mutation.

Because Darwin's theory says that things evolve by working a little bit, maybe not very well, but a little bit, and then a mutation, a change comes along that helps it work a little bit better, and that helps the organism survive and have more offspring.

Darwinian evolution is actually a belief that when you apply the tests that we use for science,.

Okay, okay. Can we stop looking at everyone's noses and get back to the finch's beaks for now? So, on the Galapagos, Darwin found that finch beaks and their feet varied island by island, proving evolution because nature was selecting the fittest birds to survive and reproduce.

And here's where the finches come in, okay? Darwin believed that different shapes and sizes of finch feet and beaks, depending on their different islands, were showing evolution, right? But this is where epigenetics comes in, okay?

What's subtle about natural selection that's harder to get is Darwin's not holding up a statue that says it favored these creatures or it acted on these creatures. He's holding up something a little harder to see, nature itself.

Literally. Well, within seven months, September 1968, a British theoretical and mathematical evolutionary biologist and geneticist called John Maynard Smith, very famous guy, who was a selectionist, that means he believes in natural selection, criticized Moto Kamora in his scientific paper.

In fact, this was Darwin's major coup and how he broke from previous evolutionists before him. Darwin began to see it was the, he claimed, and I think he was wrong, that it was the environment which is shaping and molding and crafting creatures over time.

A beneficial mutation would cause it to become a little better at surviving in an environment than the non -mutants. So its descendants, and thus the trait, eventually outnumber the others. Then the scenario repeats with another variation, supposedly driving evolution forward.