jump to navigation

New Essays

Most of my earlier essays have been incorporated in my book – “Unpublished Evolution Papers of John A. Davison” which can be obtained from Lulu Publishers.

The earliest copies did not include my Afterword which is now in the revised version. Here it is for those who purchased the very first copies.



Now that I have presented this series of essays, I am prepared to make a prediction based on the way that the critics of the Darwinian model have always been received by an evolutionary community still dominated by the Darwinian paradigm, a mindset that has always been opposed to the notion that there might be a purpose in the universe. As I hope I was able to demonstrate, St. George Mivart destroyed Darwin’s dream when he asked how natural selection could possibly be involved with a structure which had not yet appeared. While Darwin acknowledged Mivart’s criticism, he refused to respond to it and soon Mivart was forgotten. The same can be said for every one of the subsequent critics of the atheist Darwinian model, in roughly chronological order, William Bateson, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Reginald C Punnett, Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Otto Schindewolf, Pierre Grasse and more recently Soren Lovtrup, Robert F. DeHaan and now myself. We all spoke against the Darwinian model and we have all been ignored.

I am convinced that pattern will continue and my science will join with that of my predecessors, some of the finest scientists of the post Darwin era. We are not allowed to exist because, if we were to exist, the entire fabric of Darwin’s fantasy would collapse. That the Darwinian paradigm still dominates evolutionary science is a scandal which I feel has no precedent in the history of science. It has penetrated every aspect of the public arena with devastating effects on the manner in which we interpret the world in which we find ourselves. We have become a culture of nihilism, a culture which has lost all self respect and respect for our fellow creatures. We are destroying ourselves and I do not believe that there is anything that we can do to stop it.

I do not enjoy having to offer this dismal prospectus but I present it on the outside chance that perhaps the time has come when we can finally recognize that the godless, purposeless world of Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Walter Mayr, Clinton Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers can no longer serve the goal of science which has always been to find the laws which we know explain the inanimate world. Such laws must also exist in the living world. The atheist mindset must be abandoned as it has never contributed a scintilla to the advancement of evolutionary science. Until it is, we remain at a stalemate, paralyzed by opposing ideologies for which no cures are presently available. I am now convinced that we are the result of a planned sequence which reached its climax long ago and now is in irreversible decline. Our duty now is to delay extinction for as long as possible, a position I share with James Lovelock and Martin Rees two of our most original thinkers.

In the meantime I will continue my crusade against those who categorically deny a planned universe for as long as I am able. That is my fate just as it is the fate for each of us to be what we are. We are all puppets, victims of forces far beyond our comprehension exactly as Einstein claimed –

“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust – we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.”
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 196.


This balance of this Page is where you will find newer essays and works in progress which may appear in a subsequent edition (if there ever is one). In the meantime, feel free to copy these newer musings as an addendum to the published edition. They are presented in the order of their composition, unless noted otherwise, in 2010.


Three Persistent Myths In The History Of Science
by John A. Davison

In presenting this brief essay I am going to use the technique that was employed by the Southern preacher who was asked to what he owed the success of his sermons. He responded with “First, I tell ‘em what I’m gonna tell ‘em, then I tell ‘em, then I tell ‘em what I done told ‘em.”

I suspect that very few will accept my conclusions which will be nothing new for me. I add at the outset that little of what I present is original with me. What may be original is my willingness to stake my reputation as a scientist on what I am about to present.

Not only am I going to identify three persistent myths, but I intend to prove that they are myths. I realize that is a tall order and I am delighted to undertake the challenge that such a task involves.

I will present these proofs in the inverse order of their longevity with the most persistent and oldest myth first and the most recent myth last.

So here they are as employed by the successful preacher.

Man has free will.

Darwinism was the mechanism for organic evolution. Note my deliberate use of the past tense.

Oil is a fossil fuel.

Before I proceed further, let me prime the pump of undeniable Truth with a few advance warnings.

“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it to be true.”
Bertrand Russell

“An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it.”
Boris Ephrussi

“…the easiest person to fool is yourself.”
Richard P. Feynman

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
Albert Einstein

I love Einstein’s metaphor of the “waves of laughter” doing the shipwrecking. Oh, if only it were that simple. I have been laughing at Darwinism for years with no apparent effect whatsoever!

First, man most certainly does not have Free Will and never did have. If that were true there would be no war or conflict of any kind because everyone would intellectually realize that it is a crime to kill a fellow human being. I am sure that assertian will raise certain hackles so I will not bother with such trivia and get right to the formal proof that Free Will is myth.

The proof comes from the findings of investigators who were not in the least interested in the question of Free Will. They were interested in the question of Nature versus Nurture in influencing human behavior. They took advantage of a natural experiment provided by pairs of homozygotic (identical) twins which had been separated at birth or very early in life and put up for adoption. By finding these long separated twins and reuniting them later in life, the investigators discovered that every character they learned about by observation and interview showed some shared hereditary components. As expressed by one of the primary investigators, Thomas Bouchard, a psychologist at he University of Minnesota –

“Bouchard would later insist that while he and his colleagues had fully expected to find traits with a high degree of heritability, they also expected to find traits that had no genetic component. He was certain, he says, that they would find some traits that proved to be purely environmental. They were astonished when they did not. While the degree of heritability varied widely – from the low thirties to to the high seventies – Every trait they measured showed at least some degree of genetic influence. Many showed a lot.”
William Wright, Born That Way, page 40, (1998)

What makes this study so significant is that the results were not anticipated by the investigators. The history of science is rife with the significance of the unexpected result. Friedrich Wohler (1800-1882) did not expect to be able to synthesize urea, a compound that until then had been thought to be strictly the product of living activity. Furthermore, that is not what he was trying to do. That unexpected result heralded the birth of what we now call organic chemistry. The unexpected result found by the Bouchard group serves to explain why this study has been to a large extent neglected. Since the twins’ world views, whether atheist or devout, conservative or liberal, etc, you name it, are to large extent shared predetermined characters, it is not surprising that this most significant study has been largely ignored. The average human being is convinced of his own mindset and not in the least interested in considering that he might not have been objective in reaching that position. Such a fundamental feature of the human psyche is bound to have far reaching effects, effects not necessarily for the good of society as will become evident.

Certain individuals exhibit the extremes to which an innate ideology can distort their perspective beyond the range of what can be considered normal behavior. There are many who accept the Bible verbatim from cover to cover. At the other extreme are those like Clinton Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers who spend enomous amounts of energy denigrating all faith based institutions and the individuals associated with them. Dawkins’ recent suggestion that Pope Benedict XVI should be arrested the moment he sets foot on British soil can hardly be regarded as a reasoned reaction to the Holy Father’s planned visit. Furthermore, such behavior may inflame like minded souls to potentially criminal acts of violence. Such ravings should be exposed as dangerous. I am baffled by the extent that a fine mind can descend to such depths. It cannot be the result of reason alone. I am reminded again of Einstein’s steadfast determinism –

“It is abhorrent to me when a fine intelligence is paired with an unsavory character.”

There is a recent interesting manifestation of the role of a predestined mindset presented in the book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, M.D., (2006). Rossiter, a forensic psychologist, treats the liberal mindset strictly in environmental terms, making no mention of the work of Bouchard and his colleagues or of William Wright’s book. I cannot imagine a more dramatic proof that we are blinded by our genetic predispositions. Rossiter is absolutely convinced of his thesis which is why he neglects to consider an alternative explanation.

It should surprise no one that I must agree with Einstein’s life long determinism –

EVERYTHING is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
My emphasis in caps.

Einstein’s determinism has now been experimentally verified by the carefully controlled studies on identical twins. Verification is the sine qua non for every scientific advance, the same criterion that subsequently verified his 1905 hypothesis of relativity. If Free Will can be abandoned as I insist it must, it will greatly facilitate the understanding of why the next two myths must be abandoned as well.

My next myth to be destroyed is Darwin’s Victorian fantasy that Natural Selection of randomly generated genetic variations provides the mechanism for evolutionary change. I will not spend much time on this one because I have already dispensed with the Darwinian model with my essay “What’s Wrong With Darwinism? Suffice it to say that the same acid test of experimental verification that disposed of Free Will has also disposed of Darwinism countless times, most notably by a Darwinian selectionist himself, Theodosius Dobzhansky. Dobzhansky set out to transform, by artificial selection, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster into a new member of the same Genus. In other words Dobzhansky tested the Darwinian proposal in the experimental laboratory. He failed, admitted he failed, yet remained a convinced Darwinian selectionist nevertheless, as near as I can tell, for the rest of his life. What is curious about Dobzhansky is that he was a student of Leo S. Berg before Dobzhansky left for the New World. Berg, who dismissed Darwinism must have been very disappointed to see his student adopt Darwinism when he arrived at Columbia University where he fell under the influence of Thomas Hunt Morgan and the other geneticists who had fervently adopted Mendelism (1900) as the mechanism for the realization of Darwin’s Natural Selection. Fortunately for Berg, he was long dead when Dobzhansky wrote the following in the Foreword to the 1968 edition of the English translation of Berg’s “Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law.”

“A majority of evolutionists, including the author of this Preface, consider L.S. Berg’s theory of nomogenesis erroneous.”

Oh the power of majority opinion! Dobzhansky’s history illustrates the validity of Einstein’s insight into the nature of the human condition –

“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinons which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”
Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, page 28.

Theodosius Dobzhansky, a brilliant scientist, will always be a mystery in the annals of experimental biology because he failed the ultimate test of every scientist’s integrity which is to follow the trail of the truth wherever that may take him. I am convinced that if Dobzhansky had remained in Russia with his mentor Leo Berg, that Darwinism would have disappeared long ago as a credible explanation for organic change. Dobzhansky simply responded to the “social environment” in which he found himself when he arrived in the New World, a social environment to which the notion of a purposeful evolution was anathema and largely remains so to this very day.

The last myth to be exposed is the notion that oil is a fossil fuel. Oil, a generic term, can be produced by living organisms. Olive oil, castor oil, cod liver oil etc are all products of the metabolism of living organisms and so it was only natural that subterranean oil was also assumed to be the product of once living creatures, for some bizarre reason in the popular culture – dinosaurs. So entrenched is this notion that Sinclair Oil Company continues to use the green dinosaur, affectionately known as “dino,” as its logo!

What happens when an animal dies? Its remains are rapidly converted to CO2 and H2O by bacteria on the surface. More likely, the animal will be consumed by other animals thereby conserving the biomass. Either way everything ends up as part of the surface metabolism of the planet. The same can be said for much of plant life. We now know that oil exists deep in the earth far below any levels that could possibly ever have been associated with surface life. Russian investigators in particular questioned the biogenic origin of oil, suggesting that hydrocarbons were a natural constituent of the earth’s interior in no way related to surface life. Thomas Gold (1920-2004) championed the abiogenic theory here in America and was instrumental in the disposing of the myth that oil is a fossil fuel. While all the evidence against biogenesis of oil is beyond the scope of this essay, I am convinced with Thomas Gold that both oil and hard coal are products of processes that never had anything to do with living things. Furthermore, experiments by Gold and others have verified that hydrocarbons can be generated from non organic sources under the conditions that must prevail deep in the earth. I join with others by offering the following challenge. Demonstrate in the experimental laboratory how reptile flesh can be converted into crude oil.

Once again we see the persistence of a transparent myth in the face of incontrovertible, scientifically derived evidence to the contrary.

Fossil fuel, Darwinian evolution and Free Will are all myths and all for exactly the same reason. They have all failed the acid test of experimental verification. Galileo, the father of experimental science, pointed the way with –

“Facts which at first seem improbable will, on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.”

The three myths that I selected, and God knows there are plenty more, all met their fate in exactly the same way. They succumbed to the instrument that Galileo invented – the experimental laboratory.

And so I end this brief essay, confident that my thesis will be ignored as most human beings will continue to follow the dictates of their congenital predispositions to believe what they want to believe, what they have always believed, what they always will believe, helpless victims of their destinies to fulfill their role in a cosmic Plan drawn up millions of years ago, a Plan now in its final stages of completion. I am not the first to capitalize the word plan.

“I believe there is a Plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to reach its goal.”
Robert Broom, Finding The Missing Link, page 101.

Untested, unverified belief is the mortal enemy of Truth and Knowledge and has no place in science.

Recommended further reading.

“The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels” by Thomas Gold.


The Real Role for Natural Selection
by John A. Davison

In order to understand this essay it is essential to abandon the Darwinian notion that natural selection (NS) has had a creative role in the evolutionary process. St George Mivart, William Bateson, Reginald C. Punnett, Henry Fairfield Osborn and many others had all questioned natural selection as a creative element, but Leo Berg delivered the death blow to the Darwinian model with –

“The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard.”
Nomogenesis, page 406

Berg’s contribution was to unambiguously state what NS actually does do. It prevents evolutionary change. I don’t have to explain how devastating Berg’s claim is to the Darwinian thesis nor do I have to explain why the Darwinians have always pretended that Leo Berg never existed as I have already done that in previous essays.

By accepting Berg’s dictum, much of what we see in modern society finds a ready explanation.

I believe that contemporary Homo sapiens is without question the animal species which exhibits the greatest morphological and psychological variability in the history of the earth. My position is that this variation has been produced entirely by the absence of NS during the recent history of our civilization. Every sexual organism exhibits a natural tendency toward variation due to the nature of the sexual process which scrambles and reassembles Mendel’s factors (genes). When NS is suspended, variation automatically increases.

One way to evaluate our present condition is to consider what Homo sapiens must have been like when he first appeared some 100,000 years ago. Wouldn’t he have been, like all other wild animals, of very uniform morphology, easily identified with a simple key? I am confident that a careful study of our morphometry as a function of time would reveal that until the eighteenth century, which marked the birth of modern medicine, man in civilized society was a substantially less variable creature than he is today.

There is no question that modern medicine has kept many people alive who would have died prior to reaching reproductive age. I am a good example, having survived bouts of strep infections by having my tonsils removed as an infant and again as an eighteen year old, not to mention the removal of my inflamed appendix when I was ten. In a natural state I would never have survived to pass on my genes to future generations. I am sure others could say much the same.

Before proceeding, I am convinced that every aspect of the human condition has a heritable basis to some extent, based largely on the studies of monozygotic (identical) twins reared in different social and physical environments. “Born That Way” by William Wright summarizes much of this evidence. These studies have revealed that in addition to physical characters, psychological features also have a heritable basis. Indeed, it is questionable if any feature of the individual’s makeup is entirely free of genetic or congenital elements.

The entire thrust of medical science has been toward the preservation of human life, certainly a noble cause. But is it good animal husbandry? That is the only question I address here. When animal and plant breeders encounter a defective individual, they don’t attempt to cure it. They destroy it.

Now here is where I tread on dangerous ground, because I run the risk of being branded a racist, a homophobe, a bigot or worse, a genocidal radical, none of which I am. My only goal is to explain how we have become the most diverse species ever to inhabit the earth.

One way to explain the incidence of homosexuality, for example, is to ask – what would be the fate of the homosexual individual in the precivilized state? Would he/she be likely to reproduce? We can ask the same question concerning any other physical or psychological deviation from what might be arbitrarily regarded as the norm by the fellow organisms who would make that judgement. Man is a social creature and his innate feelings play a major role in how he reacts to the times in which is lives. It seems to me that we live in an era much more tolerant with respect to how society reacts to departures from traditional social norms such as those that characterized society but a few generations ago. Among these are belief in a Creator, the sanctity of human life, marriage between a man and a woman and respect for the laws and principles established by our Founding Fathers little more than two centuries ago. This tolerance for deviation from the institutions that produced Western Civilization is, in my opinion, a dangerous tendency, a trend which occurred in other civilizations as they began to collapse. It seems that affluence is our greatest enemy. As technology has given us more leisure, we become more self destructive. As the old saw says – “Idle time is the devil’s handmaiden.” It was in our times of greatest strife like the American Revolution and World War II that we enjoyed the greatest optimism and displayed our greatest resolve. I am reminded of Arnold Toynbee’s celebrated summary – “The virtues of adversity,” to which we might add – “The menace of affluence.”

Our society has become more and more fractured, more polarized and less unified as natural selection no longer eliminates the unfit, the extremists, the radicals, many of whom seek to destroy the very institutions that allow them to hold and dispense their ideologies. I believe these changes result in large part from the relaxation of natural selection which once acted to preserve harmony and thereby ensure the success of human society. Our most treasured institutions and our freedoms are being threatened now as never before in our brief history as the dominant life form on the planet. These are warnings which we cannot afford to ignore any longer. The more I read about the great experiment that the American Revolution produced, the more concerned I become that it will fail.

Two of the most radical and influential figures at the present time are Clinton Richard Dawkins and his New World counterpart Paul Zachary Myers. They have each abandoned any pretense at science to dedicate their literary and “community organizing” talents to the destruction of the very institutions that allow them that opportunity. They have hundreds if not thousands of dedicated followers, a growing number of those disenchanted with traditional values, especially the ethic which gave rise to the Judeo-Christian government of our Founding Fathers. They have become rabidly anti-religious, attacking our churches and their leaders by treating them even as dangers to our social structure and harmful to our youth.

In reading John Wain’s excellent biography – “Samuel Johnson” – I came upon Wain’s perfect description of Clinton Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Meyers –

“The average “intellectual,” especially, is the reverse of intellectual in his handling of theoretical questions. His deductive chain starts with self and ends at self. Because he has been ill at ease within the family, he wants to abolish the family. Because the power structure of his society does not automatically waft him to a position of unrestricted authority, he wants to abolish the power structure.”
page 46.

Isn’t that precisely what both Dawkins and Myers are doing? They both loathe the Judeo-Christian ethic on which Western Civilization was built. We have a similar mentality in the White House in the person of Barack Hussein Obama. The so-called “intellectual class” is anything but intellectual. It is pernicious and destructive, anxious to eliminate the freedom of the individual to control his own destiny, the feature that has always separated the United States of America from the rest of the world.

The concept of “self” to which John Wain alludes is apparent in Richard Dawkins’ first book – “The Selfish Gene,” perhaps the most bizarre assertion in the history of science. On that foundation Dawkins has produced several more books each dependent on its predecessor, culminating with another manifestation of self as the dust jacket proclaims –


Isn’t it traditional to place the author’s name beneath, not above, the title of the book?

Robert H. Bork in his book “Slouching Towards Gomorrah” offered a similar appraisal of the “intellectual class” –

“Some of our elites – Professors, journalists, makers of motion pictures and television entertainment, et al – delight in nihilism and destruction as much as do the random killers in our streets. Their weapons are just different. But who, familiar with the academic world, to take a single instance, has not seen the destructive ideas spread by men and women, not because they mean well but because they want notoriety, influence, power or just because they enjoy laying waste the structures built by others?”
page 95

I cannot imagine two who seek “notoriety, influence and power” more fervently and effectively than Paul Zachary Myers and Clinton Richard Dawkins. And do they not obviously enjoy “laying waste the structures built by others”? Their insufferable arrogance is evident in everything they write. It is they who pontificate even against the Pontiff himself! The frightening reality is their success in enrolling huge followings of devout, like minded radicals, all sharing the same goal – the destruction of the Judeo-Christian ethic on which Western Civilization was originally firmly established, an ethic in part, due to their concerted efforts, now in a state of advanced, progressive decay. And what do they offer in its stead but the antithesis of the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments? – Universal Atheism.

I believe that the present is a sad and possibly terminal chapter in the history of the Western World. I hate being right and sincerely hope I am wrong.


An Essay on Insults
by John A. Davison

As my readers have probably gathered, I collect and cherish insults. I do this because I am convinced that it is with a person’s own words that his character is best revealed. In that sense we are each our worst potential enemy.

I have probably absorbed more insults than any other scientist in the history of the internet. I tend by my nature to respond in kind. But there is a curious feature of my position as a target of vilification, degradation and denunciation generally. With very few exceptions it comes from sources whose identity is unknown at least to me. My position has always been that such comments are meaningless, so I shrug them off by calling attention to the coward from whom they emanated.

The only meaningful words come from real people and it is they that I will now discuss. When I look back I discover that relatively few real people have insulted me. The vast majority of insults have come from the mouths of those who frequent the websites of the real people who run those websites. Actually, there are whole websites run and used by unknowns which has never ceased to amaze me. What can they possibly achieve?

Nevertheless, I want to call attention to two real people who have gone out of their way to treat me with special contempt. They are significant because of their prominence as leaders in internet communication. They are Paul Zachary Myers, cofounder of Panda’s Thumb, and head of his own private venue, Pharyngula. The other person is Mark Chu-Carroll who runs the newly established Scientopia, a consortium of weblogs. He too has his private website, Good Math/Bad Math. Both have banished me from participation in the venues they control. It is only what they have to say about me that matters here. Banishment is not insult and I have been banished from just about every forum where I have appeared. I am delighted with my track record on banishment because I am an independent investigator and always have been. Since I have rejected both the Christian Fundamentalist and the atheist Darwinian perspectives, I am not surprised that I have antagonized both ideologies. Their intolerance to criticism reflects their insecurity and nothing more.

But personal insult from known adversaries is a serious matter. It should be thoroughly aired and that is what this message is about.

First Mark Chu-Carroll

If you go to his August, 2010 Archives, you will discover that he introduced a thread dedicated just to me, in which I responded as best I could. In that exchange he repeatedly called me a liar, a most offensive insult. To this he added that I was a f**king dumbass, a pathetic liar, a pathetic lying asshole and a number of other colorful expletives. Only then did he banish me and end the exchange.

The other known source of insult is Paul Zachary Myers who has used such terms as insane, senile and deranged in describing my persona. My first and only attempt to speak on Pharyngula was met with – “Your stench has preceded you.” I have earned a special place as inmate #4 in his “Dungeon” also known as his “Hate File,” where you will find me vilified in most remarkable fashion. It is right there at the top of his introductory page on Pharyngula where I have joined seventy or so other objects of Myers’ colorful vitriol. We are described as miscreants. In my case my “crimes” are “Stupidity,” “Wanking” (a synonym, I learned, for masturbation) and “Insipidity.” He leaves little to the imagination as he vents his spleen with perfect abandon. He is a master of invective, far and away his greatest talent. How anyone could describe me as insipid I find very hard to understand.

While Myers and Chu-Carroll are by far the most virulent in their attack on our science, there are other known personalities who have gone out of their way to insult me. One such is Bob O’Hara, a statistitian, who with his spouse grrlscientist (nee Devorah Bennu) host the “This Scientific Life” blog at Scientopia. O’Hara recently described me as a “chew toy” which I take to be something that the Dogs of Darwinism enjoy insulting. That description, while accurate, neverethless constitutes an insult and it is clear that O’Hara shares that evaluation of our science, especially since it does not end there, In consultation with one of his cronies, “Fred the Bulbous Squidge,” O’Hara has decided that I should be addressed as “Fluppy the Wonder Whelk,” the current (November, 2010) title I enjoy at his blog. “Fred the Bulbous Squidge” has admitted that he is actually Mark John Brewer, another statistician. Brewer also ridiculed my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis without offering any evidence that he had even read it. I add that O’Hara is a regular at Wesley Royce Elsberry’s personal “inner sanctum,” “After The Bar Closes,” a subdivision of “Panda’s Thumb”. Like many other weblogs, “After the Bar Closes” also teems with cowardly, infantile, pseudonymous blowhards with aliases such as “oldmanintheskydidn’tdoit” and such revealing self descriptions as “Second Class,” and “Rev. Big Dumb Chimp” who also is active at Pharyngula. As near as I am able to ascertain, none of these blogs is even remotely interested in questions dealing with organic evolution. Apparently they regard the Darwinian model as settled science so their only role is to belittle any challenges to it that might come to their attention.

One of my favorite critics is Alan Fox who follows me around mainly to remind everyone of my age as a possible explanation for my refusal to accept the Darwinian hoax. He is a great admirer of Richard Dawkins who he describes as a “great read” whatever that means!

What I find most interesting is how very few leaders of the “Darwinian movement,” a cult I have come to call the “Darwinista,” as opposed to the “Fundamentalista,” have been willing to treat me with such flagrant contempt. Of the Myers/Dawkins/Elsberry Darwinian alliance, only Myers has personally insulted me. The other two rely exclusively on their huge fan clubs to represent their antipathy to me and our science. Since those fans are either pseudonymous or without credentials, they are of no consequence as far as I am concerned. Of course I was banished from responding to those insults in any event. As far as I know, Dawkins has yet to recognize my existence and I think I know why. For some reason Bob O’Hara refuses to muzzle me so I am still active on his blog “This Scientific Life.” I am still “Fluppy the Wonder Whelk” and still doing my level best to encourage our critics to display their character as we each all do entirely with our own words and deeds.

I believe that there is a sound reason why so few of the prominent figures in the field of evolutionary science refrain from doing what Meyers, Chu-Carrol and a few others have already done. They know better. They must realize how fragile the Darwinian thesis is, how vulnerable, how ridiculous it now appears as the more we learn from molecular biology and the fossil record, the more absurd becomes the notion that chance could possibly have played a major role in the animate world we now see all around us. I believe their silence is highly significant and I am very encouraged by it.

“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”


Below is my terminal comment with which I departed my participation at Scientopia, which, as near as I can ascertain, is dominated by Darwinian atheism. It can be considered as an essay in progress with the tentative title –


On Being Ignored.
by John A. Davison

As I predicted in the Afterword to my book of essays on evolution, I will be ignored just as the following have all been ignored –

St. George Mivart
William Bateson
Henry Fairfield Osborn
Reginald C. Punnett
Leo Berg
Robert Broom
Richard B. Goldschmidt
Otto Schindewolf
Pierre Grasse
Soren Lovtrup
Robert F. DeHaan
and many other fine scientists –

and all for the same reason. They exposed Darwin’s Victorian fantasy for what it was, nothing but the invention of an overactive human imagination. Darwin’s celebrated “natural selection” has about the same validity as the novel by his contemporary, Mary Shelley – “Frankenstein.”

Darwinism has died a thousand deaths but rises like the Phoenix from its own ashes because it is the only conceivable hypothesis acceptable to the congenital, “born that way,” atheist mindset that represents the dominant element of contemporary evolutionary science.

The inertia of this “movement” is enormous and, like any other “body in motion,” it is not easily stopped. Sooner or later it will come to a screeching halt to be remembered as the greatest embarrassment in the history of science, and all those who supported it will finally be exposed as the pseudoscientists they have proven themselves to be.

“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde

I rest my case as I have better things to do with my life than further to waste the precious little time that remains.


P.S. While I had every intention of leaving Scientiopia, Bob O’Hara and his crony “Fred the Bulbous Squidge” aka Mark John Brewer refuse to let me leave gracefully, insulting me after my terminal comments, thereby ensuring my responses in what, as far as I am concerned, is a game I am willing to play for as long as they insist. I urge my readers to visit “Scientopia” and especially “This Scientific Life” and “Good Math/Bad Math” to witness first hand the pathetic state to which the advocates of the Darwinian model have reduced themselves. The most persistent hoax in the history of science has descended to become an exercise in what can only be described as ideological masochism. I am convinced that the contemporary hysteria of the “Darwinista” will ensure its imminent demise as an intellectual force with enormous embarrassment to the scientific community. Until that glorious day, I will continue to use every means at my disposal to further that inevitable and most desirable result.


Are Darwinians Scientists? (First draft, January 12, 2011)

I begin this essay with the dictionary definition of scientist –

Scientist – “a person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially natural or physical sciences.” American Heritage Dictionary

I have never encountered a more useless definition. Who is to decide who has “expert knowledge?” According to this definition, anyone can be a scientist by declaration. Stated another way, a scientist is one who can convince others that he is “an expert in one or more sciences.” As we shall see, that plays an important part in answering our question – are Darwinians scientists? Of course we have those who claim to be “experts in one or more sciences,” to include the great mystery of organic evolution. I am going to proceed as if such experts did not really exist.

Since the dictionary definition is useless, I will try to define the word “scientist” in a more useful fashion to describe what the word actually means.

There are two fundamentally different kinds of science. The first is observational science which is limited to what one can conclude strictly by observation. Scientists who fall in this category are known as naturalists. The other major sub-division is experimental science and those scientists who test their ideas by controlled experiment are by definition experimental scientists or experimentalists. Galileo is properly regarded as the father of experimental science because he did experiments to test his observations. His elegant experiment with balls rolling down inclined planes allowed him accurately to estimate g, the acceleration due to gravity. Aristotle was the naturalist, Galileo the experimentalist. Scientists of both sorts have contributed greatly to our understanding of the living world. Certain subdivisions of biological science are more amenable to experimental inquiry than others. Chemistry and Physics have their biological derivatives, Biochemistry and Biophysics, experimental sciences all. Genetics, not a science at all until the brilliant experiments of Gregor Mendel, is also a strictly experimental science.

Certain areas do not readily lend themselves to experimental analysis. Geology and its biological subdivision, Paleontology, must remain largely the realm of the naturalist and our understanding of the fossil record is not subject to experimental analysis. The great paleontologist Otto Schindewolf made this limitation very evident when applied to the question of evolution –

“Many recent authors have spoken of experimental evolution; there is no such thing. Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated in that way.”
Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 311, his emphasis in italics.

I was shocked when I first read Schindewolf’s words but have since become convinced of their accuracy as is evident from my belief that the entire evolutionary sequence was planned from beginning to end, an end which I believe is represented by the present biota which is incapable of further evolutionary transformation. Note Schindewolf’s phrase that took place in the past, suggesting that evolution may no longer be occurring, a conclusion which I believe is supported by the facts.

Now what does this have to do with the question – “Are Darwinians Scientists?” It has a great deal to do with the question we have posed because Darwinians have consistently refused to apply the tools of experimental science to the Darwinian model. Instead, by remaining consistently in naturalist mode, they have drawn all their conclusions on the basis of observation alone. The initial error that Darwin and apparently all of his followers made (and still make) was the assumption that Charles Lyell’s Doctrine of Uniformation applied to the living world. The gradual cumulative changes that help explain the present geological structure of the inanimate world are in no way comparable with any aspect of the living world. There is absolutely nothing in either the fossil record or in the living landscape that even suggests gradualism. Quite the contrary, everything indicates discontinuity, discreteness, separation and lack of continuity. While this in no way argues against evolution, it can never be reconciled with any model based on gradual transformation. Instead, the discontinuities make possible precise taxonomic keys that can unerringly lead, in very few steps, even the amateur to the identification of every organism he is likely to encounter. It is our contention that gradualism never played a role in either speciation or the formation of any of the higher taxonomic categories. By remaining in purely naturalist mode, Darwinians have deliberately denied themselves the many avenues offered by experimental science. They, with very few exceptions, have refused to test the Darwinian model which assumes that selection is the driving force for speciation and accordingly for evolution generally. To my knowledge there exists not a single experimental test that can unambiguously support selection as the cause of speciation. Theodosius Dobzhansky’s gallant effort with Drosophila melanogaster met with dismal failure as he admitted, yet he remained a selectionist nevertheless, unable or unwilling to fulfill his responsibility to accept the testimony of experimental science. To that extent he failed as an experimental scientist.

Our interpretation of the reasons for this curious state of affairs may not be acceptable to some, but we are convinced that it stems from one of the characteristics of the human mindset that we now know has a congenital component – whether or not one believes in a Creator. I have discussed the evidence for this congenital tendency elsewhere so I will not pursue the details here. In an earlier essay – Why Are Darwnians Atheists? – I offered a primary reason for the refusal of the Darwinian to accept a purposeful, guided evolution. That reason is Pride, one of the seven deadly sins. Acceptance of a guided evolution conflicts with his atheist mindset in a very fundamental fashion, a conflict which has led to the intractable polarization that has always plagued our search for the truth concerning the mechanism explaining our origins. The atheist Darwinian doesn’t believe in sin anyway so he is immune to its implications.

There is a more significant reason Darwinians do not test the Darwinian model. It is – fear , fear of what the results may mean for their precious notion of Natural Selection. The Darwinian sees evolution in action everywhere he looks, but rarely, if ever, applies the experimental test that will either verify or negate his presumptions. The Galapagos finches, known as Darwin’s finches, are the perfect demonstration of this failure to apply experimental science to a critical evolutionary question. They have been assumed to represent as many as 12 separate species in the Genus Geospiza, a Genus that also occurs in nearby Ecuador.

The canary is a finch and has been domesticated and bred in captivity for centuries, yet as far as I know no one has attempted to domesticate Darwin’s finches. Fortunately, largely due to the field observations by the husband and wife team of Peter and Rosemary Grant, we now know that spontaneous crosses occur in nature between finches long assumed to be separate species to produce genetically fit offspring. Curiously, the Grants have recently been awarded a one million dollar prize for their work which, as far as it goes, indicates that Darwin’s finches are mere varieties of a common species, quite possibly the progeny of a single fertile female which may have arrived long ago on the Galapagos archipelago from nearby Ecuador. Why this matter has not been further resolved experimentally constitutes a transparent demonstration of the insecurity of the Darwinian community. It is reminiscent of the attempts by Theodosius Dobzhansky to transform the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster into a new species through experimental selection. He failed, admitted he failed, yet nevertheless remained a Darwinian selectionist for the rest of his life. The proper conclusion to be drawn from Dobzhansky’s experiment is that selection cannot transform one species even to another species in the same Genus. Incidentally that is my conclusion and I still await the experimental transformation of any true species into a new species through the agency of selection, natural or artificial. I do not believe that transformation to be possible, and it certainly cannot possibly be the agency producing the higher taxonomic categories of Genus, Family, Order etc.

Albert Einstein offered a possible explanation for the failure of the Darwinians to effectively question their collective beliefs.

“Few people are capable if expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”
Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, page 28.

The social environment was generated with the discovery in 1900 of Gregor Mendel’s 1868 paper which laid the foundation for the science of Genetics and mutation of the genes suggested that they were the units which were being selected for or against. The geneticists became convinced that they had found the key to evolution. There is nothing in our present state of knowledge to support that contention. Quite the contrary, natural selection is limited strictly to the elimination of allelic mutants and the preservation of the original species for as long as possible in its original state with only minor, intraspecific changes subject to selective survival, changes which do not lead to new species formation. That was the contention of Richard B. Goldschmidt in 1940, one with which I agree today, 70 years later. We must discard the flawed interpretation of the role for natural selection and recognize that allelic mutation has played no role whatsoever in progressive evolution although it may play a significant role in extinction.

I believe that extinction was also planned just as was evolutionary progress. Without extinction there could never have been evolution. Both were planned long ago.

The picture that emerges from this brief exposition leaves little room for interpretation. By refusing to test the Darwinian model and even to recognize the results when such tests were actually performed, those who continue to support Darwin’s Victorian fantasy leave little doubt as to the answer to our question. There is only one answer – NO! Hamstrung by an atheist ideology, the Darwinian is impotent as a scientist. He is paralyzed by a congenital defect for which a cure is presently unavailable, doomed to be forgotten as nothing but a detractor and impediment to the search for the mechanism which can explain our origins.

The following is an essay in progress with the tentative title “I Quit!”

I am fed up being a lone voice in the wilderness exposing the idiocy of the Darwinian model. Who else is going after them hammer and tongs? Where are my allies? Do they exist? Surely no one at Uncommon Descent. They made a critical mistake long ago which was to introduce Intelligent Design as a subject for debate. Scientists don’t debate and I know of not a single advance in science that was even remotely influenced by a debate. Scientists discover and then present their discoveries to receptive minds. That is why we know that Darwinians are not scientists. They have discovered nothing, absolutely nothing, because they are convinced that they already know the answer to the central problem of evolutionary science – the mechanism by which it took (past tense) place. The centers of Darwinism, Pharyngula, Panda’s Thumb, After The Bar Closes, EvC and RichardDawkins.net never address this central question because they are convinced they already know the answer. They devoutly believe that it is natural for non-living matter to spontaneously become alive, to then naturally evolve into increasingly complex organisms to produce the whole array we see in the fossil record as well as the entire present biota. All this must have taken place naturally because to the Darwinian’s mindset the notion that the universe might have had a purpose conflicts with his innate congenital atheism. In a real sense the conflict in which we are presently engaged is a battle between atheism and a general theism, a theism which need not involve a personal God.

As for the imagined premise on which Darwinism proceeds, I regard it as the most absurd proposition ever to escape the human imagination, a notion so groundless as to be rejected instantly as it was by every one of the sources on which our science depends.

“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it to be true.”
Bertrand Rusell

That is exactly what the Darwinian still insists on doing, believing in a groundless proposition.

It is the insistence on a personal God that enrages the atheist Darwinian and which has been instrumental in creating the present useless stalemate that impedes the understanding of our origins. Any attempt to straightjacket any science within the confines of Judeo-Christian theology is doomed to failure. Yet that is where the battle has always been waged between Christian fundamentalists and ultraliberal atheists, the vast majority of whom are not really scientists in either camp.

“The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.
Albert Einstein

Occam’s Razor (the Principle of Parsimony) requires that we must accept only the necessity for the past existence of one or more “entities” which may not even be with us any more if we are to proceed in a rational fashion in our quest for the mechanism of our origins. To insist, as every Darwinian must, that it is intrinsic in the nature of non-living matter to self organize, metabolize, differentiate, reproduce and evolve all without a plan and schedule is incomprehensible to this investigator and should be to every enlightened, rational human being.

“A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.”
Groucho Marx

The first, and in many ways the most devastating, blow to Darwin’s thesis was delivered by St. George Mivart only 12 years after the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” Mivart, in his “Genesis of Species,” introduced his Chapter II (Chapter I was the Introduction) with the title “The incompetence of “natural selection” to account for the incipient stages of useful structures.” That provocative challenge was never answered by Darwin or by any of his thousands of disciples and demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the whole Darwinian thesis. It is perfectly plain that a structure cannot be selected either for or against until after it has appeared. The vast majority of novel structures first appeared in their perfected form, one of the most obvious examples being the avian feather. The feathers of Archaeopteryx are indistinguishable from the feathers of a contemporary pigeon. The same can be said for virtually every other evolutionary invention whether macro or micro. There is not a shred of evidence that any of the cellular organelles such as ribosomes, mitochondria, flagella, cilia, microtubules, cell membranes, (you name them), ever had simpler precursors either. In a very real sense such elements did not evolve but appeared de novo in their present configuration. All of our present knowledge pleads that all these were pre-designed and pre-programmed to appear when and where they did, a reality that can never be reconciled with Darwinian gradualism.

I realize this perspective is in stark contrast with Lynn Margulis’ symbiotic hypothesis for the origin of certain subcellular organelles such as cilia, flagella, mitochondria etc. I have rejected her hypothesis on the grounds that it cannot be demonstrated experimentally. When I made her aware of my alternative explanation, she blocked my email, making any further discussion impossible. It is a sad day in science when adversaries must resort to such measures. It indicates a profound insecurity in ones published thesis. Apparently Lynn Margulis is a Darwinian.

In short, atheist inspired Darwinism is a total disaster with no redeeming features whatsoever, a failure throughout its long history as the only conceivable position for those who, congenitally deaf to what Einstein called “The music of the spheres,” must also be “blind as the proverbial bat” to the living world in which they find themselves. The Darwinian zealot is proof of Einstein’s admonition –

“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion.”
(my emphasis).

I rest my case against Darwinian mysticism, supremely confident that there will be no response to this analysis, just as there has never been to those by the many distinguished scientists before me, not one a religious or atheist fanatic.

Everything I present here is a waste of my time just as it was a waste of Mivart’s time and all his successors’ time who also dealt death blows to Darwin’s fantasy. It is not sufficient to destroy a failed hypothesis when its proponents cannot be scientists, cannot detach themselves from their innate, congenital convictions even for a moment.

“The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.”
Albert Einstein

My useless rant has become an essay with the tentative title “I QUIT!” I have better things to do with my remaining days. I think I will just shut up and watch the inevitable take place on its predetermined schedule, hopefully in the not too distant future.

Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein (my emphasis)


Phlogiston and Darwinism Compared

by John A. Davison

Wikipedia introduces Phlogiston Theory as follows.

“The Phlogiston theory, first stated in in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, is an obsolete scientific theory that postulated the existence of a fire-like element called “phlogiston” which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The theory was an attempt to explain processes such as combustion and the rusting of metals, which are now understood as oxidation.”

Before continuing, I will use the word “theory” in its more rigorous sense to mean an “hypothesis” which has been verified. By 1784 Antoine Lavoisier had proved beyond doubt that Phlogiston did not exist. Not only was nothing lost during burning (oxidation), the materials being oxidized or burned gained weight by virtue of the addition of oxygen to their structure Thus the Phlogiston hypothesis never reached the status of theory because it was never verified. Thus we can conservatively estimate the duration of the Phlogiston hypothesis as between 1667 and 1784 or 107 years.

In 1859 Charles Robert Darwin published his book with the complete title –


That is the title of my facsimile printing of the first edition published in 1964 with an Introduction by Ernst Mayr, who identified himself as a “dyed in-the-wool Darwinian like myself” in his book The Growth of Biological Thought, page 132.

The substance of Darwin’s title is still the ruling paradigm today, 152 years later, making Darwinism of far longer duration than the Phlogiston of Chemistry. There are reasons this has been possible. One of the basic tenets of Darwin’s proposal is that evolution is a slow process, not to be observed in one’s lifetime. While offering an explanation, it flies in the face of the fossil record which not in a single instance can support such an assumption. What we see are the sudden appearance of discrete species which persist for a variable period of time only eventually to disappear either suddenly or over a limited period of time. I know of not a single instance in which one known fossil species became gradually transformed into another. Otto Schindewolf, the greatest paleontologist of the twentieth century, claimed that we might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed. The famous horse series is a beautiful demonstration validating his position. The individual species are so different from one another that the taxonomists must place them each in a separate Genus. Such a record is the very antithesis of gradualism and supports a saltational sequence favored independently by both Schindewolf and Richard B. Goldschmidt.

A sexually mediated process can produce all sorts of intermediate phenotypes as is so evident with dogs and many other domesticated organisms which have been subject to artificial selection. Yet not in a single instance has such selection transformed one species into another. Artificial selection, when carried on too long, invariably leads to a lack of genetic fitness and ultimate extinction. There is every reason to believe that is the case with natural selection as well. Natural selection has never been anything more than a delaying tactic ensuring extinction without which a creative ascending evolution could never have occurred.

So we see that the underlying assumption of Darwin’s proposal is without merit and has failed the acid test of experimental verification, the same acid test that destroyed the Phlogiston hypothesis in Chemistry.

When an hypothesis fails at such a fundamental level, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is wrong and should immediately be discarded. Yet this has not taken place. I think I know why. The reason has nothing to do with biological science at all which continues to flourish in the laboratories of the world to reveal a growing complexity unimaginable in Darwin’s day and mind boggling even today. The refusal to abandon Darwinism results entirely from an even more stubborn refusal on the part of his supporters to acknowledge the only conceivable alternative conclusion which is that the living world must have been planned. Such a recognition is impossible for the atheist mindset which Darwin’s world has always represented.

Why anyone would waste his energies trying to prove that God does not exist, which lies at the root of the Darwinian strategy, is beyond me as it was beyond the comprehension of Darwin’s Bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley, who, never a Darwinian himself, had this to say –

“Of all the senseless babble I have ever had occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove that there is no God.”
Henrietta Huxley, Aphorisms and Reflections From the Works of Thomas Henry Huxley, page 3.

Albert Einstein presented a similar analysis –

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source… They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 204.

What do we learn from Clinton Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers, the two most vocal supporters of of the atheist inpired Darwinian model? We learn that they are helpless, “prescribed” automatons, proving Richard P. Feynman’s reminder that the easiest person to fool is yourself.

The simple reality is that we are not free to be objective in our interpretations of the world in which we find ourselves. We are largely trapped by our congenital predispositions which renders us impotent to variable extents. Some of us are hopelessly useless members of society like Paul Zachary Myers and Clinton Richard Dawkins. Their innate atheism has destroyed any vestige of the one feature which is mandatory for every scientist – objectivity.

Perhaps the most difficult lesson for every person to learn is that he is not objective. I finally came to grips with that humbling reality and learned in the process that I had been far from objective in the manner in which I had been dealing with my world. With that revelation came a new way to look at the world, a world that must have been planned and in which we are playing a role for which we must have each been predestined by forces over which we have little or no control. I once again turn to Albert Einstein, in my opinion the most enlightened student of the human condition who ever lived –

“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion. (my emphasis added in italics)
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 200.

The Causes Of Extinction
by John A. Davison

The scientist is always interested in the reasons events take place and when he feels he has found a reason he is inclined to publish his conclusions. Nowhere is this more evident than with respect to the causes of extinction. Unfortunately, past events like the extinction of the dinosaurs, are not subject to controlled testing. It is precisely this weakness that allows imagination to run rampant. Since proofs are not available, anything goes. Once again we encounter the limits of the application of the scientific method to a fundamental aspect of the evolution mystery. I insist that evolution remains an unsolved mystery despite the Darwinian’s claim that it has resulted from Natural Selection, that cornerstone of Darwin’s 1859 proposal.

I am going to take a fresh look at the causes of extinction based on what can actually be established with certainty. This will be followed by another interpretation which has largely been ignored.

When conditions change, animals and plants are often able to move to a more favorable environment and avoid the factors which would otherwise lead to their extinction. Certain environments make such movements impossible and they can be very instructive in explaining extinction. Mountains provide one such environment and species limited to the alpine habitat can only move up and down if the enviroment changes. Tim Flannery has studied montane plants and animals and the ranges they occupy as environmental temperature has changed. Montane biota is typically highly specialized and many species found there can be found nowhere else. In his book “The Weather Makers,” Flannery cites several examples of extinction resulting from warming which has caused such creatures to move upward. When there is no more “up,” extinction takes place. These studies are important because they leave little question as to the causes of extinction. There is no question that thousands of species have become extinct in the past 200 years as man has so drastically altered the environments in which such species are confined.

It is interesting to note that comparatively little extinction has taken place in marine organisms when compared to their terrestrial counterparts. The ocean is relatively much more stable and many marine creatures can move to more favorable sites. Notable exceptions are the sessile coral reef creatures which have suffered massive extinctions as the salinity or temperature of their habitats have more rapidly changed than their capacity to find more suitable habitats through the dispersal of their free living larval stages can allow. Coral reefs are in many ways superorganisms stuck where they have been for centuries with no place to go like the montane creatures studied by Flannery. The bleaching of coral reefs is a powerful signal that man has also seriously damaged the marine environment.

Thus we see perfectly acceptable explanations for much of the extinction that we know has taken place. But can we always be confident that extinction has resulted from environmental change?

In the distant past evolution and extinction were occurring simultaneously with new life forms appearing at the same time that their predecessors were becoming extinct. Without concurrent extinction there never could have been evolution. Can we be certain that those extinctions were due only to an inability of the organisms to respond to a changing enviroment? Indeed is there compelling evidence that the environment was necessarily even changing very much? I don’t believe such evidence exists.

The history of the fossil record reveals certain repetitive phenomena that have characterized every taxon as they appeared, flourished and then became extinct. The paleontologist Otto Schindewolf has offered a unique explanation for this repetitive sequence. He has proposed three distinct phases in the evolutionary process. The first phase which he named typogenesis marks the appearance of a unique new life form (type) markedly distinct from its predecessor. The second phase, typostasis, marks the elaboration of the type as it flourishes and increases in number and variants. The third phase, typolysis, marks the progressive decay of the original type preceeding and culminating in its extinction. He presents convincing evidence for this sequence operating in a variety of taxonomic series.

Schindewolf’s proposal stands in complete contrast with the Darwinian model as it presupposes a determined evolution in which chance has played no role. As such it has been largely ignored by the Darwinian establishment with a notable and revealing exception. Schindewolf’s book, originially published in German “Grundfragen der Palaontologie” in 1950, was not translated into English until 1993 as “Basic Questions in Paleontology.” Stephen Jay Gould wrote the Foreword in which he dismissed Schindewolf’s entire thesis by describing it as –

“spectacularly flawed.” page xi

I will never pardon Gould for this hideous response to the science of the greatest paleontologist of the twentieth century and probably of all time. Gould’s characteriztion is typical of the manner in whch the Darwinians have always treated any departure from the “one true faith,” the atheist inspired interpretation which the Darwinian position demands. Rather than consider an alternative, they have invariably chosen to pretend such alternatives cannot exist and are out of the question.

Unfortunately, I see no sign that the situation will change in the immediate future. All we can do is what we critics have always done. We will continue to expose Darwin’s proposal for what it has always been, the fantasy of a dreamer, congenitally unable to see what is transparent to many of us, that we live in a world that was designed from the beginning to what now seems to be the climax of that design with man and his fellow creatures representing the crowning achievement of millions of years of preparation, what Robert Broom had the temerity to capitalize as a Plan.

It is my belief that Broom’s Plan has been fully realized with the present living world which as near as can be ascertained can only become extinct, a process we already see in progress everywhere without a single verified new species appearing in the historical era and not a new Genus in the past 2 million years.

We confidently present this alternative proposition, calling the attention of the scientific community to the failure of the Darwinian establishment to recognize our existence. We can only speculate but propose that their silence springs from fear that they have pursued a phantom and that everything they have long believed had nothing whatsoever to do with what we now all see around us.


Natural Selection: The Achilles Heel of Darwinism.

by John A. Davison

The words “Darwinism” and “Natural Selection” have come to be virtually synonymous. I will show in this essay that Natural Selection (NS) not only had nothing to do with evolutionary change, but served to prevent change for as long as possible, its role today as always in the past. How such a fundamental misunderstanding ever managed to take place requires an explanation which is the purpose of this essay.

After Darwin returned from the nearly five years he had been naturalist on board the H.M.S. Beagle, he settled in 1842 in what was to become his home for the rest of his life. Down House (note the absence of the terminal e) is located in the village of Downe in the London Borough of Bromley near the southern border of greater London. Darwin never left England again and it was there at Down House that he developed his notion of Natural Selection as the engine for organic change. His home is now a museum and tourist attraction where devoted disciples visit to pay homage to the man who more than anyone else removed God from the evolutionary equation. So taken is Laurence A. “larry” Moran with Darwinism that he named his blog “Sand Walk” after the path that Darwin frequented as he reviewed his evolutionary fantasies.

A Creator (or creators) were no longer necessary as evolution could now be explained as an auto-catalytic process fueled only by the accumulation of small changes selected for or against by Nature, the sole judge of what will or will not survive to produce the changes that we know have taken place over the millennia in which species have come and gone in the history of life on this planet.

For 17 years Darwin pondered what he had observed on the voyage of the research vessel H.M.S. Beagle and it was there in and around Down House that the notion of NS finally fully crystallized; yet he still hesitated to publish his explanation. An interesting question arises. Why did he wait so long? Of course we can only speculate but it is generally agreed that what prompted publication was the fact that Alfred Russel Wallace had reached a similar if not exact explanation for organic change – Natural Selection.

Scientists live in mortal fear of being “scooped” and when such a prospect looms, they tend to react promptly. Wallace had sent his ideas in the form of a letter to the Linnaean society and so it was arranged that his letter and Darwin’s would be read simultaneously as part of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society. The letters which had already been received were each read in a meeting of the Society which took place on July 1, 1858.

Darwin reacted quickly, assembling his materials in the form of what he described as an “Abstract” and his book was published on November 24th, 1859 under the imposing title –

“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

That title leaves little to the imagination as Darwin has clearly stated that NS is the cause of organic evolution.

Having summarized its history, we are now prepared to demonstrate that there is not a word of truth in Darwin’s book and that the sole role of NS has been misunderstood from 1859 to the present day.

Before we begin, it is important to review the role Alfred Russel Wallace played in this unfolding drama. While Darwin spent the rest of his life in England, Wallace was becoming the greatest and most widely traveled naturalist of the 19th century. Wallace soon modified his earlier position at first gradually and finally completely as exhibited by the title of his last book –

“The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose.”
London, Chapman and Hall, Limited, 1911.

Wallace died in 1913 in his 90th year. It is no wonder that the Darwinians ignore the metamorphosis of the co-author of natural selection, the sine qua non of the Darwinian paradigm.

A scientific hypothesis is only as good as it can be verified by experiment or direct observation. The theoretical physicist Richard P. Feynman reminded us that –

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

Sensu strictu, Natural Selection has never reached the status of theory as theories are verified hypotheses, a level NS has never attained. The gradual changes required by the Darwinian thesis has never been observed nor has it ever been verified by controlled experiment.

The key word is gradual. Gradual changes require long periods of time to be observable and this has been the argument the Darwinians use to support the NS concept. Related to this is their insistence that evolution is still going on. Everything the Darwinian sees is through the lens of a continuing evolutionary process of adjustment to a changing environment. There is no question that such changes can occur. For example, insects can become resistant to insecticides, microbes to antibiotics and many organisms can become tolerant to changes of temperatures and toxic conditions, etc, etc. But do these adaptations represent evolutionary changes? As far as can be determined, they do not because when the challenging factor is removed, the organisms return to their prior state. The key element that distinguishes evolution from adaptation is the irreversibility of organic evolution. Any change which can be reversed is not an evolutionary change. No mammal has ever evolved into a reptile, no reptile into an amphibian and no amphibian into a fish yet we know with certainty that sequence in reverse is the path through which evolution has actually taken place.

The paleontologist Otto Schindewolf was adamant about the notion of an experimental or reproducible evolution.

“Many authors have spoken of experimental evolution; There is no such thing. Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated in that way.”
Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 311. (Schindewolf’s italics).

As an experimental scientist, I was at first shocked at Schindewolf’s position but have since come to believe that it best represents the historical facts. The reaction by the Darwinians has been, aside from rarely mentioning Schindewolf at all, to dismiss his evolutionary conclusions as “spectacularly flawed.” Those are the words Stephen Jay Gould used when he wrote the Foreword to Schindewolf’s 1993 English translation – “Basic Questions in Paleontology,” (page xi) – originally published in German in 1950 as “Grundfragen der Palaontologie.” Forty three years after its publication and 22 years after Schindewolf’s death, Stephen Jay Gould decided to dismiss Schindewolf’s evolutionary science by describing it as “spectacularly flawed.” I have never forgiven Gould for this shabby treatment of the greatest paleontologist since Cuvier. We can be certain that Gould would never have dared use those words when Schindewolf was still alive.

It is characteristic of the Darwinians to ignore their critics while alive and then to dismiss them once they can no longer respond by claiming that we know much more now than we did then. Those many critics of the Darwinian model constitute a veritable honor roll of the most distinguished biologists of the post Darwinian era – William Bateson, Reginald C. Punnett, Leo S. Berg, Robert Broom, Pierre Grasse, Richard B. Goldschmidt and many others, not one a religious or atheist zealot. Nothing has changed since St. George Mivart in his 1873 book – “On the Genesis of Species” – described NS as “incompetent” because it cannot explain the appearance of new structures – “THE INCOMPETENCY OF ‘NATURAL SELECTION’ TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INCIPIENT STAGES OF USEFUL STRUCTURES.” – The title of MIvart’s Chapter 2, page 35. Chapter 1 was the Introduction.

While many had questioned NS, it was not until 1922 that it was finally described for what it actually has always been and still always does.

In his remarkable book “Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law,” Leo Berg properly identified the role of NS as follows –

“The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard.”
page 406.

While many others had questioned NS before him, Berg unambiguously and vigorously stated what, in his opinion, NS actually does, a position which I believe best represents the testimony both of the fossil record and what we see operating with the present biota. With his carefully crafted sentence, Leo Berg struck a death blow to Darwinism by turning the role of Natural Selection upside down, rendering it useless as an explanatory thesis and at the same time explaining its primary role which has always been the same – to delay evolutionary progress for as long as possible, a strategy which, with very few exceptions, has terminated with extinction.

But has Berg’s revolutionary thesis been recognized by the Darwinians? The answer is an unqualified NO! Stephen Jay Gould in his ponderous “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” made no mention of Leo Berg in the text and didn’t list Nomogenesis in his Bibliography. Ernst Mayr whose office was down the hall from Gould’s (at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology) also made no mention of Berg in the text of his “The Growth of Biological Thought,” but added insult to injury by listing “Nomogenesis” in his Bibliography. Thus Mayr openly dismissed Berg’s science as of no consequence. Accordingly, the two most prominent spokespersons for the Darwinian paradigm revealed themselves to be scientific bigots, unfit to wear the mantle of scientist by allowing their congenital atheism to destroy the one feature that has always characterized the true scientist, the willingness to abandon a failed hypothesis when that becomes necessary. Rather than confront their many critics, the Darwinians continue a tradition that began a century and a half ago. when they failed to respond to St. George Mivart’s accurate description of NS as “incompetent.”

Leo Berg was the greatest Russian biologist of his generation and, in my opinion, the most insightful evolutionist of all time. His book “Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law” remains a treasure trove of evolutionary science unexcelled as a source of real evolutionary science free of the trappings of ideology, prejudice and bigotry. Everything we have learned in the eighty-nine years since its publication fully vindicates the words with which Berg described the closely related mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny –

“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Nomogenesis, page 134

“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it to be true.”
Bertrand Russell

By accepting Berg’s position, the Linnaean taxonomic system receives powerful support. Linnaean taxonomy depends heavily on the apparent immutability of species, a feature which allows even the amateur to correctly identify any organism he is likely to encounter. Taxonomic keys proceed on the basis of alternate choices which lead in relatively few steps to the unambiguous identification of the organism sought. The vast majority of organisms in their natural state exhibit very little variation, and those that do are easily identified as to species as, for example, white tigers. Furthermore, the genetic basis for such rare mutants obviously has little if any adaptive advantage in any event. The lowly chickadee, so common in the Northeast provides an ideal example. Every chickadee not only looks rather exactly like every other chicadee, but they all sound alike as well – chickadee-dee-dee, chickadee-dee-dee. Apparently only the chickadees recognize the opposite sex! These observations are in perfect accord with Berg’s insistence that natural selection and the struggle for existence “maintain the standard.”

Indeed, from what we know with certainty, there is little reason to assume that even speciation is still in progress. I have repeatedly challenged the Darwinians to present an example of a new verified species and the species known to be its immediate ancestor. Such examples have not been forthcoming, leading me to postulate, with Robert Broom and Julian Huxley, that creative organic evolution is no longer in progress. What we see are the products of a past evolution, not examples of evolution in progress as the Darwinian model demands. One of the most remarkable contradictions in the evolution literature is the way that the Darwinian faithful have ignored a conclusion drawn by one of their own, Julian Huxley, the man who coined the term “modern synthesis” which became the title of his book “Evolution: The Modern Synthesis,” otherwise a thoroughly Darwinian interpretation of evolutionary phenomena.

Oblivious to the science of their critics, both those within and without the Darwinian camp, the faithful continue their allegiance to the fundamentals as laid out by their founder – Charles Robert Darwin. I can only conclude that we have witnessed and continue to witness the conquest of a blind, atheist inspired ideology over reason on a scale hitherto unknown in experimental and descriptive science.

Based on what we have presented here we are now prepared to offer our interpretation of the findings from the experimental laboratory and the fossil record as follows –

1. Chance and natural selection have played no role in the ascending sequence which the fossil record so clearly represents.

2. The sole role of natural selection has been limited to small reversible transformations none of which lead to new species. However, the accumulation of deleterious genes may play a role in extinction.

3. No evolutionary changes have ever been gradual which is how it is possible to identify every organism, living or fossil, with certainty using simple binary keys.

4. There is every reason to believe that creative organic evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past and is no longer taking place. Thus, it follows that the current biota is a terminus, a climax of what must have been a planned sequence in which chance has played at best a trivial role.

5. Both phylogenesis (evolution) and extinction have been planned. Without a planned extinction, evolution could never have taken place.

That is our position and so it will remain until it is demonstrated to be without merit, an eventuality I do not anticipate.

“Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed.”
Thomas Henry Huxley


1. John A. Davison - October 22, 2010

I am considering a suit against Mark Chiu-Carroll and Scientopia for his treatment of me and have advised him to reinstate me on the thread


which he introduced about me along with a public apology for the manner in which he abused me.

2. 1dublin - October 22, 2010

Love the essay’s John very well done. It is too bad these people are unable communicate without insults. I would assume they do it from desperation. Thanks again John.

3. John A. Davison - October 22, 2010

Dealing with Darwinians is impossible. They are immune to reason because they already have all the answers. I should be ashamed of myself for continuing to attempt the impossible. Dealing with these animals is like trying to make chicken salad out of chicken s**t.

4. John A. Davison - January 14, 2011

I call your attention to the most recent of my essays, the last one recorded here –

“Are Darwinians Scientists?”

Let’s see if the Darwinians have the stomach to respond to my answer – a resounding NO! I am betting they won’t say a word. Any comment would be welcome, pro or con, any indication that this blog even exists. We many critics of Darwin’s fantasy have never been allowed to exist. Nothing has changed over the course of a century and a half of the mass hysteria that Darwin set in motion. Followers of his atheist philosophy automatically gravitated together to form a powerful, unified obstacle dedicated to the proposition that organic evolution was an intrinsic property requiring neither a plan nor guidance. How real scientists can possibly hold that belief is impossible to imagine. Their persistent history of denial and intolerance defines Darwinians as the enemies of Truth and Knowledge, driven by an atheist ideology which renders them incompetent to wear the mantle of scientist. Their days are numbered and they know it which is why all they now can do is lash out at those of us free of the mindless, congenital deficiency disease with which they are all afflicted. They are helpless victims of a “prescribed” history in which chance has never played a significant role. Those of us free of that malaise should thank God for our good fortune.

I emailed this message to Pee Zee Myers with copies to Dawkins, Elsberry and several others interested in the great mystery of organic evolution. Accordingly, there is no excuse for them not to respond to this frontal assault on everything they hold dear.

5. Mary Daly - February 5, 2011

Dear John,
Your opinions are important to me on many levels. But they seem to be shifting:

New species:
I thought that your proposal of making the “kind” leap halfway through the meiotic process was the move of a genius, which you had clearly laid out as necessary because sexual reproduction could not work. I presumed it was sufficient for all levels of differentiation, since all depend on chromosome patterns, and many genes are similar across the biosphere.
At the suggestion of my sister, I looked forward to the building of a “periodic table of living forms” which would lay out the possible permutations of the chromosomal system, in a manner analogous to the laying out of the permutations of the electron system in the Periodic Table of chemistry. This set of (biotic) permutations must be finite, however large, and must also, in some sense, have a design, just as the Periodic Table is a design, though the stars which built it were not artists, only gravity-objects.
But now you are saying only species are involved in the SMH, and furthermore your Neanderthal girl is only step one, and not actually a speciation since her progeny mate with their cousins. Your old idea worked for me; the new only offers a larger “gradual” step than Darwinism. I can’t even see how you’d know if homo sapiens was a new species at all, or just a variety, as with dogs.
So I’m feeling as if the recent developments of your idea were causing its extinction.

Free will:
It is clear that your opinions about free will are settled… And, to be fair, I have noticed lots of things in my own life that are not quite as independently “mine own” as I might have thought. I have an interest in prayer and read St. John of the Cross in 8th grade – hardly genetic inevitabilities. Yet my mother had just entered the Catholic Church and was reading St. John of the Cross during her pregnancy with me.
So there’s an obvious inheritance, though hardly genetic, as her mother was a Lutheran/Congregationalist and never read any of that stuff and was horrified that her daughter so forfeited her reason as to become a Catholic. But anyway, there can’t be a John of the Cross gene, any more than a “building a circular seat around a tree” gene, another evidently heritable curiosity that found expression in the famous twins. I believe their mother sat on such a seat during her pregnancy, and it was her place of comfort as she faced the impending loss of her children. And you have acknowledged that some of that stuff might be from pre-natal life but not “genes.”
So: we agree that not everything that seems “wholly mine” is really so, but not everything “inherited” is genetic. We are part of our families and environments and our default choices reflect this. Stability requires some of this; progress requires some escape from it… enough and we do not part company yet, do we?
Nevertheless, it might be reasonable to ask for a definition of the free will that you say does not exist. At some point, some freedom must obtain, or the search for truth, which clearly does engage your talents, would not be meaningful. One must be able to consider evidence and choose our thoughts on that basis, or there is no possibility of science at all, for anyone.
BTW, the classical definition of science is “reasoning from evidence to conclusions” and I narrow the definition for the natural sciences by saying that, for these disciplines, the allowable evidence is found in measure, weight, and number, – and in observation which is a simple form of measure, weight, and number. Opinion, desire for a conclusion, intuition which cannot find material support – these are all acts that scientists engage in, and they are important, but are not – quite – science.
And, of course I do not consider the size, weight, or number of peer-reviewed journal articles to be relevant… you must agree, or you’d have thrown in the towel.

Global warming:
So this is the species-terminating complex of decisions, which, as you view it, is built-in just as surely as outrageous giantism or super-predation, which brought on the demise of other species. So I understand how it fits into your paradigm, and that is interesting, if not exactly cheerful. And indifference to that warming must be genetic – or at least inherited – in order to fit the whole picture. Have I understood?

6. John A. Davison - February 5, 2011


I hope you have understood my thesis. Very few have.

I believe that every aspect of the history of life was predetermined long ago by one or more “programmers” concerning the nature of which we know absolutely nothing. I am a convinced determinist, sharing that perspective with Albert Einstein.

Science can also proceed from the absence of evidence. The abysmal failure of the Darwinian model has led “us” to the only rational alternative. Organic evolution must have been planned from beginning to end. The “us” to which I refer includes myself and my sources all of whom have rejected any explanation based in any way on chance. In Law it is known as the exhaustion of all remedies. I have applied that rule to the question of the mechanism of our origins.

I believe we are all born with built in prejudices which have profound effects on the way we interpret the world in which we find ourselves. We are all victims. Some of us have been luckier than others. I learned long ago that it is fruitless to try to convince others of views in conflict with their own. It only makes matters worse. Real scientists do not debate, do not try to convince. They discover and try to pass on their discoveries to receptive minds of which there have always been very few. That is all that I have ever tried to do.

Incidentally, in my opinion, past species were preprogrammed to become extinct and would have disappeared with or without environmental catastrophes just as salmon and eels die after reproduction. The giant Amphibia that preceded the Dinasaurs did not require a catastrophe to become extinct and neither did any other taxonomic category. In short –

EVERYTHING is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein, my emphasis

I do not expect others to agree with “us.” I know from bitter experience what a waste of time that is.

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”
Albert Einstein.

“Ontogeny ends with death, phylogeny with extinction. Both have proceeded on information originally present.”
John A. Davison

You may quote me!

7. davescot - February 6, 2011

Hi John,

Great essays. Glad to see you’re still sharp as a tack and mean as a snake. Hope the rest of you is holding up as well against the ravages of time.

I’m in upstate NY for a while taking care of my mother, just about exactly your age, after major surgery. My first northern winter in 35 years. A real hum dinger too. Really enjoying it and so are my dogs.

All the best,

8. John A. Davison - February 6, 2011

Thanks Dave.

I’ve always had dogs, eight in all. As you say, great minds think alike. My current and probably last one is a four year old miniature Poodle named Pierre after Pierre Grasse. My previous dog was a Dachshund named Otto in honor of Otto Schindewolf. If I should outlive Pierre which seems rather unlikely, I will get a Russian Wolfhound and call him Leo after the greatest evolutionist of all time – Leo Berg.

Texas is without doubt the greatest State in the Union and if I wasn’t so damn old I would move there.

If you will send me your email address I will add you to the list to whom I copy my taunts that I keep sending to the Dawkins/Myers/Elsberry Axis of Evil.

Best to you too.

9. dovhenis - November 9, 2012

Speciation And Natural Selection
More On Brain-Mind Origin-Evolution
Underneath the academEnglish verbiage

Again, the neural system, including the brain, was evolved by unicells communities (cultures) to react to, to exploit, the environments for survival-natural selection. Like all genetics, all biological capabilities, it is a progeny of culture, of response to circumstances.

IMO plants’ “brains-mind” are not as developed as in mobile organisms simply because stationary organisms face much fewer survival-natural-selection challenges than mobile organisms.

It takes survival-natural-selection challenges to modify expressions of RNA nucleotide genes, the Earth life primal ORGANISMS. See Pavlov.

Speciation is a genetic response-progeny to a cultural-circumstantial survival-natural-selection challenge. See Darwin and Pavlov. Examine-compare survival challenges of species and the extents of their progenies and of their speciation.

This is further to
“Seed of Human-Chimp Genomes Diversity”

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

10. sacampbe - November 9, 2012

I am not sure I entirely understand you, Dov but if you are making an argument for evolution, you should know that the owner of this blog, John Davison, recently died. Most of the folks visiting this blog are also very firm creationists, and unlikely to accept that evolution and natural selection exist.

Best wishes,

11. dovhenis - November 9, 2012

Thanks, Stu.
I’m an 88 yrs old evolutionary biologist, convinced that:

– the universe evolves repeatedly between two poles, all gravitons mass briefest singularity and all gravitons in motion not-yet completely innert.

– all mass formats are subject to natural selecton, there’s no randomness, all mass formats reconvert at constant rate into energy, i.e. escape their Big Bang clamps fragments and keep moving.

– life is just another, self-replicating, mass format evolved by natural selection of RNA nucleotides, genes, which are life’s base organisms, and all life formats are evolved RNA genes..

Thus we’re all very temporary on Earth and in the universe, and it’s up to every one of us to do with the gift of life whatever she/he elects…and all values and ethics and morals are virtual means to extend our personal and group survival…

Thanks again and best regards,


12. sacampbe - November 9, 2012

I agree with the statement about making the most of life, and the statement that morality is the result of evolution, but the rest seems like nonsense.

Perhaps it is an English language issue, but it seems like you’re missing verbs…and these statements just seem like a random set of words. You’re also the first “evolutionary biologist” I’ve ever met to invoke the existence of gravitons (which remain purely hypothetical, as far as I know…but perhaps you are also a particle physicist).


vmartin1 - November 28, 2012

Nice to see you Stuart. Still a Darwinist? I have deleted some spam, I will chceck the blog from time to time.

13. sacampbe - November 28, 2012

“Still a darwinist?” Not sure.

What is a Darwinist?

14. solenadon - November 30, 2012

A Darwinist, in this instance, is a straw man bugaboo of vmartin1. he, like his now dead mentor, cannot actually defend their “theses”, hence the lame insult attempts.

In this case, a Darwinist is anyone who points out the uselessness, with evidence, of vmartin1 and Davison.

15. sacampbe - November 30, 2012

what, I was being insulted? vmartin1, were you insulting me? goodness me.

You always struck me as a real intellecktual, vmartin1. Surely you couldnt have been insulting me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: