share this


November 12, 2017

The Consensus of Clowns

Mr. James Graham has had no formal training in and possesses no credentials in Biology. Nor has he been trained in or possess credentials in any other science. We who have actually acquired advanced scientific education and who possess the relevant credentials therefore can, with impunity, ignore the

September 1, 2017

Links to All Postings

This is a list of all my postings in posting-date order, from the most recent to the oldest.

The Consensus of Clowns

Not. My. Peers. (Part Two)

Not. My. Peers. (Part One)

This is Not "The Chicken or the Egg?" Question

My Correspondence with Thomas S. Kuhn

Cephalopod Secrets

Strong Science, Weak Logic

Reposted: Speeding Neutrinos, Cold Fusion and ... Cancer Triggers?
Re-posted: Speeding Neutrinos, Cold Fusion ... and Cancer Triggers? - See more at:

Free Ebook Now Available

Updated: Visitors to This Site ... and Their Favorite Postings - See more at:

Updated: Visitors to This Site ... and Their Favorite Postings - See more at:
Feedback Loops, One-Eyed Thinking and Turbo-Charged Selection

A Prohibited Animal

Who Has Been Visiting This Site?

On the Origin of Bilateral Symmetry

Cancer Discovered in Hydra?

On Peto's Paradox

An Open Letter to Armand Marie Leroi (Continued)

Starfish Secrets: Did Echinoderms Cure Cancer?

Did a Carcinogenic Crucible Produce the Human Brain?

The Chapter Five Argument: Explaining Two Megafacts

The Axillae of San Stefano
The Chapter Five Argument: Explaining Two Megafacts - See more at:

An Open Letter to Armand Marie Leroi

Evaluating the Reviewer (Part Three)

Evaluating the Reviewer (Part Two)

Evaluating the Reviewer (Part One)

Do Naked Mole Rats Confirm that Senescence is a Cancer Defense?

Once in Galapagos a Lady ...

Twenty-five Questions Not Solved by Conventional Evolutionary Theory

Advice I Cannot Possibly Follow

How Did Bilaterian Evolution Happen? (Continued)

How Did Bilaterian Evolution Happen?

No, It Is Not Neo-Darwinism, and, Yes, It Is Radical

Speeding Neutrinos, Cold Fusion ... and Cancer Triggers?

A Revealing Exchange of Emails

Google Scholar: Citations to my Publications

Sleep: Post-Publication Confirmations?

L'espirit de l'avion

My Talk at the University of California, San Francisco

May 9, 2017

Not. My. Peers. (Part Two)

Does Competency in Theoretical Biology Require Superior Intelligence?

If one were to ask members of the public whether or not a particular profession demanded high intelligence most would answer "Yes" to "Evolutionary Biology." Ask Americans to name a fellow countryman, living or dead, who they associate with "evolution" and many would name Stephen Jay Gould. Many of his admirers would even claim he had been a "great" theorist. 

Now consider what Gould wrote in the March 29, 1984 issue of The New York Review of Books: "I am hopeless at deductive sequencing...I never scored particularly well on so-called objective tests of intelligence because they stress logical reasoning ..."  Having scored in the ninety-ninth percentile on more than one of those tests, I do not consider persons with intellectual inadequacies similar to Gould's to be my peers.  

Perhaps Gould was an exception, a masterful self-promoter and a skillful writer who managed to hide his "hopeless" inability to engage in logical thinking. Well, in light of my first encounter with him and the weird popularity of his co-written paper inspired by Gothic architecture, I suspect that the field is over-populated with his intellectual equals. His peers. Not mine.

Not. My. Peers. (Part One)

peer (noun)

"  ... a person who is equal to another in abilities ... "

As the author of a paper submitted to a journal I expected that anyone asked by editors to evaluate it would at least be my intellectual equal. Unfortunately, experience with two biology journals convinced me that, judged solely by their written comments, the evaluators of my submission were not my peers. They were my intellectual inferiors.

April 28, 2017

This is Not the "The Chicken or the Egg?" Question

Let's begin with the definition of a "vital" organ: A group of specialized somatic cells performing a function that is essential to the viability of the organism; if such an organ is destroyed or suffers irreparable major damage the organism dies.

Now here is the question: Which came first, an organism with a vital organ or a gene pool capable of controlling developmental mitosis with the precise efficiency required to construct such an organ?