I’ll comment, as a mathematician.
I looked at the Wistar conference (there was an online page at one time). As I recall, it was mostly boring. But, at that time I did have concerns as a mathematician.
Here’s the problem: natural selection, as usually presented, is a kind of statistical convergence to an optimum or near optimum. While that may help explain why species seem well adapted, it does not explain the creativity that we see.
Mutation, at first glance, is just a matter of depending on sheer dumb luck (as some creationists put it). And that, too, seems implausible.
To understand evolution, you have to understand the role of the creativity of an ever changing environment. Neo-Darwinism is too often presented as if the environment is static. And if the environment were static, I would not expect much innovation.
You mention “Darwin’s Doubt”, and it’s a good example of the problem. The Cambrian was a time of a rapidly changing environment. So we should expect a lot of biological innovation. It seems that Meyer was looking for an explanation only in terms of mutation and selection, without taking into account the environment.
Anyway, here’s the big principle:
-
Environmental change drives biological change;
-
Biological change drives environment change.
The complex interaction between those is what accounts for biodiversity.