Hi CTD

there's no trace of the struggle required by Darwin's version of "natural selection"

Actually conclusion 2 in the above describes differences in organisms abilities leading to selective advantages/disadvantages. While the “struggle for life angle” and the “red in tooth and claw angle” are not explicitly stated getting yourself killed due to a lack in your genetic ability must be seen as a disadvantage and certainly would prevent your gene’s being passed on in line with this point.

There's a question that begs to be asked: if Darwin's story, or any of the subsequent forms of evolution were satisfactory, why would you be undertaking these rewrites? Would you mind explaining some of the shortcomings?

Darwin wrote his work over 150 years ago, we’ve learned quite a bit since then, well some of us have. Today’s version of ToE is a refinement of Darwin’s original, it takes into account new findings but the gist of natural selection is still there in a largely unchanged form. Darwin’s original idea is still at the heart of the modern formulation of ToE despite the twisted logic that some use to try to ignore that fact.

Now why don't I offer a competing hypothesis?

More empty rhetoric CTD? Skunk Funk again is it then? Of course if you have an actual theory to present please go ahead. It would make this a most interesting thread to have a competitor to ToE presented. Do you have such a theory? Or does this one stink as much as the skunk?

In Reason

Russell