jeri...it was steve who first used "neo Darwinism" and I ventured that I thought it meant mutations added to the natural selection that Darwin thought sufficient for molecules to man evolution. Darwin knew nothing of mutations, I presume , so that being the added ingredient, added subsequent to darwins idea.ie , I presume mutations as the agent of change was not on his radar.
i'm sorry if you thought I was ridiculing. perhaps you need to lighten up a bit. maybe scientists of Darwinian persuasion take themselves too seriously.
sciencegeek. here is the problem. you talk so scientifically, but I fail to see how tracing your human ancestry even back to neandertals equates to pond scum to profs evolution evidenced as true. you would have to go back to something pre-human to validate that idea.
that is not as far as Wallace went, I believe. and Darwin charged him with possibly killing off their "baby". Wallace at least knew humans were vastly superior to any other creature.
and I fully realize mudcat evolutionists infighting is not peer review, but as a layman it is faintly amusing to witness.