“I am inclined to suspect that we see in these polymorphic genera variations in points of structure which are of no service or disservice to the species . . .”’–Charles Darwin, “Origin of Species”
As part of his theory, Darwin is saying that variations can include those which have no service to the species. That is the neutral theory. We could also add . . .
“Mere chance, as we may call it, might cause one variety to differ in some character from its parents, and the offspring of this variety again to differ from its parent in the very same character and in a greater degree; . . .”–Charles Darwin, “Origin of Species”[quote=“Swamidass, post:52, topic:36348”]
I would also add that this contradicts your own definition of Darwinian evolution.
How does it contradict my definition? Random mutations include neutral mutations.
My main point is that it isn’t helpful to misrepresent the theory that Darwin put forward.
However, you claim that it isn’t helpful to use “Darwinian”, and yet you continue to use “non-Darwinian mechanisms” as if that has meaning. Why not just say what the mechanisms are without using the “Darwinian” moniker?