Neo-Darwinism failed in 1995

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: May 12, 2016

We replaced neo-Darwinian theory with what was known about the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality (1995/2002)

See also: The Darwin Code by Greg Bear

Evolution rising from the grave

The pioneering thinkers of yesterday are the devoted traditionalists of today. New ideas enter science grudgingly. New paradigms are resisted with a vengeance.

Living with the Neanderthals

…the preposterous ideas of yesterday are the unshakeable dogmas of today, and the ancient superstitions of tomorrow. Science is driven by politics, and politics by fear.

My comment: What could possibly be the purpose of this forthcoming conference?

New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives (November 2016)
The trendsetters have failed to present anything new during the past 20 years. Their perspectives are as useless and ridiculous as they have always been.

See for review: Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory May 19, 1995

Excerpt: … far from concentrating on the development of theories of organisms and ecosystems, Neo-Darwinism concentrates on genes as the fundamental entities in biology.

…Neo-Darwinism is not only prone to misleading rhetoric and inadequate science, but its applications may result in ecologically dangerous agricultural applications.

See also: Physics: Material to meaning


Carroll demonstrates the absurdity of adding to the Core Theory to explain the possibility of things such as an afterlife or a transcendent underlying purpose. These are easy targets. The narrative begins to get awkward when it comes to, say, conscious experiences. These, Carroll writes, are “not part of the fundamental architecture of reality”; they are emergent, a handy way of talking about what brains do. Like entropy, he argues, consciousness is a concept that “we invent to give ourselves more useful and efficient descriptions of the world”. He calls his approach “poetic naturalism”.

My comment: Weekend resurrection of the bacterial flagellum was reported last year in Science Magazine. Ranier Friedrich’s group has since linked energy as information flow from quantum physics the de novo creation of G protein-coupled receptors and zebrafish olfaction to neuronal networks in humans that others have linked to consciousness.
See also:


One exception would be a small number of pages about the multiverse, which he contrasts with religion, ending with (referring to religion)This is the problem with theories that are not well-defined.

He’s got the problem right, but doesn’t notice that it applies equally well to this particularly dubious bit of “science”.

My comment: No matter how many times that physicists are told their ‘religion’ is based on nothing but theory, they refuse to link energy as information from top-down causation to biologically-based cause and effect. Like neo-Darwinists, they fail to include energy-dependent cell type differentiation, which means they fail to link virus-driven energy theft to all pathology.That’s the magic of how the big bang cosmology industry and evolution industry are linked. Their religion requires no experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect to support their ridiculous claims. But they established the popularity of their claims and have not realized that explaining healthy longevity compared to virus-driven pathology on Earth has nothing to do with their religious beliefs or the beliefs of any others.Serious scientists have linked energy-dependent changes from angstroms to ecosystems and virus-driven energy theft to all pathology. Young earth creationist are not the only scientists who have done that.

See also: Site-selective and stereoselective functionalization of unactivated C–H bonds

Reported 5/11/16 as Chemists find ‘huge shortcut’ for organic synthesis using C-H bonds

The handedness of a molecule is important in organic chemistry, since this 3D shape affects how it interacts with other handed molecules. When developing a new drug, for instance, it is vital to control the chirality of the drug molecules because biological molecules recognize the difference.
My comment: Substitution of the only achiral amino acid, glycine, at position 6 in the GnRH decapetide links the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction from the innate immune system to supercoiled DNA in all vertebrates. Supercoiled DNA protects all organized genomes from virus-driven entropy.
Why would any theorist continue to think for 20 years that their ridiculous theory could stand the test of time in the context of experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that has continued to come from serious scientists who have linked energy-dependent changes from angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera?

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: