“Science is a game with one defining rule,” writes UCLA biochemist Richard E. Dickerson.
The whole point of “fitness,” in an evolutionary context, is reproduction. One has higher “fitness” if one can have more offspring.
Dubious procedures like these would be unthinkable in other natural sciences, such as physics.
This is indeed cutting-edge research. Given that, did you wonder if they’d bring evolution into it? Of course they do.
As we know, random changes and undirected natural processes routinely succeed in assembling functional equipment for a range of uses.
What Dr. Swamidass has going for him is primarily a quirk of semantics.
The desperation of evolutionists to explain away the sudden emergence of animal phyla suggests that critiques of Darwinism may be having an effect.
Some leading figures of the alt-right, such as Richard Spencer, are sympathetic with paganism.
Biologists often claim that coevolutionary interactions, as with bees and flowers, can alter the fitness landscape to drive evolutionary changes.
Lee Spetner says of convergent evolution that it explains nothing but is simply a case of “giving a name to our ignorance.”