“Darwinism” is an archaic term almost never used by the scientific community. It was replaced by “neo-darwinism” around 40 or so years ago which itself is being replaced by the modern synthesis.
ID-Creation sites still rail against “Darwinism” because they’re playing to the lay public’s ignorance of the current status of the theory. See the DI’s bogus propaganda “Dissent For Darwinism” document for a good example.
Evolutionary science is not Darwinism. Darwinism is at best an ideology like ID is. ID, TE, EC are ideologies and have NOTHING to do with evolutionary science.
I believe you have misunderstood him on this point.
What, in your opinion, are the bushes, and how can you recognize different bushes as being separate?
My response -> If there was absolutely NO information difference between humans and chimps I would be VERY surprised (because it would make NO sense at all). And we would ALL have to revisit our understandings of alleged-NALSE-evolution.
I.e., it is very obvious that chimps are morphologically and intellectually VERY different from humans.
So, if that morphological and Intellectual difference is NOT due to the informational content of the genome, what is it due to? We would have to infer that there is SOME OTHER source of information than just the genome (and as you are aware, we are seeing strong indications that that is indeed the case, IN ADDITION to the differences in the coding-genome and the non-protein-coding DNA).
It is obvious that the proteins (proteome) in chimps are NOT 100% identical with those in humans.
It is also obvious that the protein-coding DNA-sequences in chimps are NOT 100% identical with those in humans.
It is also obvious that the NON-protein-coding DNA-sequences in chimps are NOT 100% identical as those in humans.
And increasingly, it is becoming evident that significant portions of the non-coding sequences are involved in higher-level control of genes, gene expressions, gene amounts, timing, sequencing of processes etc.
And it is becoming increasingly evident that other epigenomic processes are involved in gene expression and control. And it is VERY unlikely that those processes are identical between chimp and humans.
And SO, it is completely FALSE to claim that the information content of the chimp genome (and non-coding genome and epigenome) is identical (or even within 1% of each other as some atheists have claimed in the past).
Continuing on…
The following PLOS paper states ->
Quote -> //This pipeline identified 634 human-specific genes (1,029 transcripts), 780 chimpanzee-specific genes (1,307 transcripts), and 1,300 hominoid-specific genes (3,062 transcripts). Taken together, the total number of candidate de novo genes was 2,714 (5,398 transcripts) (Fig 2a). The rest of genes will be referred to as conserved genes.//
This would indicate (at face value) a difference of about 1500 genes (634+780 genes) between humans and chimps.
Side-note: AND, including hominoid-specific de novo genes (of 1300) that results in a the total number of de-novo genes was 2700, for the creation of hominoids (with subset chimps and humans).
So, you have to show the availability of probabilistic resources for the creation of 1500 genes in a 6-10 million year timeframe for CH-LUCA to allegedly naturalistically evolve into chimps and separately, humans.
I have seen NO reason to infer that there are enough naturalistic probabilistic resources for such evolution.
Remember also that it is NOT sufficient to just evolve the coding sequence; you have to allegedly evolve the de novo non-protein-coding control sequences throughout the genome of both humans and chimps.
…
Everything that I see confirms that Naturalistic Large-Scale Evolution (NALSE) is a Naturalistic (blind-faith) metaphysical interpretive paradigm that is completely immune to contrary evidence. NALSE simply does NOT match the actual scientific evidence.
That is why I reject NALSE (due to the scientific evidence AND philosophical epistemological considerations).
Did you intentionally change topics right there? We were discussing orphan genes. I linked you to a page that demonstrates orphan genes are a misnomer. There are no genes with out ancestors in the human genome. This makes a great deal of sense to evolution. It also invalidates your argument.
Please learn how to use the quote function.
Still waiting for you to explain what prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time and producing macroevolutionary change. 
Do you realise there is a big difference between saying (hypothetically) that human and chimps share exactly the same set of genes, and saying “there is absolutely no information difference between humans and chimps”? Given your later comments about non-coding functions I think you must do, which is why it’s even more bizarre to me that you came up with this strawman.
No, the figure of 99% is based on a genome comparison*, so the claim is that humans and chimps are within 1% of each other genetically, not in terms of “information content”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
Did you also note that only 21 had evidence of translation? This number will undoubtedly rise, but I think it’s likely that the number of translated orphan genes between humans and chimps won’t be more than a couple of hundred. How many of these genes will actually be functional? Even fewer. It’s one thing to find some translated transcripts that are unique to a particular species, it’s another to say they’re new functional genes.
Besides @swamidass already pointed out that the overwhelming majority of all these transcripts aren’t in fact totally novel, they have arisen from previously non-coding sequences. To quote the authors of the paper you’re citing:
Our results indicate that the expression of new loci in the genome takes place at a very high rate and is probably mediated by random mutations that generate new active promoters.
This isn’t me being combative, so please don’t take it that way. It’s not always easy to keep track. You gave three definitions of evolution and you rejected all of them? Thanks.
Not really. Many of us use Darwinism as a short-hand for Darwinism and its progeny.
Consider … Darwinism = Variation + Natural Selection (NS) as the creative agency.
Neo-Darwinism = a specific form of variation (mutations) + NS as the creative agency.
So, in that sense Neo-Darwinism is a subset of Darwinism.
The Modern Synthesis = Neo-Darwinism + population genetics.
However, the creative agency in the MS is still variation + NS.
So, again, a subset of Darwinism. Not much is really new (over Darwinism), apart from some claims about reproductive isolation and how that can influence speciation. But again, it is Random Variation + NS as the creative agency (so still a form of Darwinism, with Darwinism as superset).
No, not really. It is well known different selection pressures come into play above the species level (i.e geographic isolation) but the basic mechanisms are still the same, changing the population one generation at a time. 5280 one foot steps will still move you a mile.
From the article: I Agree With Behe
Behe rejects Darwinism. I agree with Behe, and reject Darwinism too. I am not a Darwinist. There are several meanings to the word “Darwinism.” Both Behe and I reject Darwinism in all these many forms.
Darwinism can mean the ideology of atheism , including insistence that there are no supernatural beings or divine action. I agree with Behe in rejecting this ideology. Although I have many colleagues that are atheists, I personally reject atheism. I am, after all, a scientist that follows Jesus.
Darwinism can mean entirely naturalistic evolution, without allowing divine action. I’m not convinced by Behe’s scientific case for design, but I confess that God providentially governs all things . I believe God raised Jesus from the dead, so I know that He acts in the world. This is one reason, for example, I made a case for the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. Though science is silent about God’s action, science does not deny it.
Darwinism can mean positive selection dominated evolutionary change , natural selection driven change. This version of evolution, the target of Behe’s three books, was already shown inadequate in science by Kimura in 1968. Along with most biologists, I agree with Behe that Darwinism (in this sense) is not enough to account for all the complexity and beauty we see in life. We need non-Darwinian mechanisms too.
In all these senses, both Behe and I reject Darwinism. The Discovery Institute is mistaken when they referred to me as a Darwinist. Neither Behe nor I are Darwinists. We both reject Darwinism in all these forms.
Generally you only see that in the lay public as I already explained. One sure way to signal you don’t understand the actual modern theory is to keep harping on Darwinism.
I didn’t say it was. I would say that Darwinian evolutionary theory is a part of evolutionary science. Do you find this objectionable? This does not mean that “Darwinism” is not an ideology. Is there simply no way to distinguish the science from the ideology?
No, yes, really. 
You can see thousands of papers when you do a literature search for micro-evolution
and a separate literature search for macro-evolution
IF the two are the same, you would not see thousands of papers discussing one or the other. They would ALL be discussing just micro-evolution (with the faith based assumption that macro evolution is the same as micro evolution).
Also, there is no sound rational reason to insist that a process that changes the size of a pre-existing feature (a beak size) is the same as the alleged process that created the entire creature.
@Kwjibo, how would you rewrite this? How about?
Darwinism can mean the ideology of atheism (that even many atheists reject). including insistence that there are no supernatural beings or divine action. I agree with Behe in rejecting this ideology. I have many colleagues that are atheists, but I personally reject atheism. I am, after all, a scientist that follows Jesus.
Or this?
What do you think?
Note → Many of us use Darwinism as a short-hand for Darwinism and its progeny.
That’s… a ridiculous metric for measuring this “controversy”. They can be results of the same process but still have different names because they describe different scales, right? That would be perfectly consistent. We have different words for “short” and “tall”, even though height is a continuous variable.
We have different words for “inch” and “mile”, does that mean that we can’t eventually get to a mile by repeatedly moving an inch in the same direction?
Glad to see you confirm that you reject Darwinism.
I too reject Darwinism in the senses above.
Note → You can see thousands of papers when you do a literature search for micro-evolution
and a separate literature search for macro-evolution
IF the two are the same, you would not see thousands of papers discussing one or the other. They would ALL be discussing just micro-evolution (with the faith based assumption that macro evolution is the same as micro evolution).
In addition, there have been different proposals for mechanisms that are different at the micro level vs the macro level. Again confirming that the two are NOT necessarily the same.
Also, there is no sound rational reason to insist that a process that changes the size of a pre-existing feature (a beak size) is the same as the alleged process that created the entire creature.
Then don’t be surprised when you’re identified as a scientifically illiterate layman on evolution.