The discovery eventually launched an international exploration the area the South African hills that started in 2006. This week, the results of the explorations were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).  Robert Reisz of the University of Toronto was the lead author.

Since 2005, ten nests have been discovered at several levels at this site, each with up to 34 round eggs in tightly clustered and carefully arranged clutches. The distribution of the nests in the sediments indicate that these early dinosaurs returned repeatedly (nesting site fidelity) to this site, and likely assembled in groups (colonial nesting) to lay their eggs.

Seven eggs are demonstrated in the image with one of the eggs scrapped open to reveal the underlying embryonic form of the dinosaur skeleton.

“Thus, fossil and sedimentological evidence from this nesting site provides empirical data on reproductive strategies in early dinosaurs”, the report concluded. The reproductive strategies discovered include: 1) repeated returns to the nesting site and 2) grouping of the eggs.

Entitled “Oldest known dinosaurian nesting site and reproductive biology of the Early Jurassic sauropodomorph Massospondylus”, the report was a featured story by the Smithsonian Institute, BBC News, Science Daily, Forbes, and The Huffington Post.

Amazingly, the report then claims that the evidence from the nests “provides additional insights into the initial stages of the evolutionary history of dinosaurs”. While the claim is intriguing, evidence from dinosaur nests cannot be used to validate a presupposed history of evolution.

Evidence for evolution requires transitional links between species, not evidence from nests within a species−typical evolution red-flag spin. In fact the report never even attempt to mention how these nests could even hope to provide evidence of transitional links between dinosaur species.

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin cut to the chase what investigators should be looking for: “We should always look for forms intermediate between each species” Reisz PNAS report just presumes that evolution magically happened, never even mentioning transitional intermediate links.

Simply finding and reporting on fossils is not evidence for evolution.  By using the words “dinosaur”, “fossil” and “evolution” together, the evolution industry is attempting to hoodwink support for evolution−a common trick.

More than 150 years ago, Darwin recognized that the fossil record was not kind to even his theory of evolution -

Why then is not every geological formation [fossil record] and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.

The late Stephen Gould in The Panda’s Thumb recognized Darwin’s dilemma noting that the “fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more”.

Isolated evidence from the nests of a single dinosaur species alone cannot provide “additional insights into the initial stages of the evolutionary history of dinosaurs”. What evolution needs are the missing transitional links.

In an attempt to work-around the vacuum of transitional links that Darwin said should be found to exist once the Earth had been fully explored, committed evolutionary paleontologists have resorted to these hoodwinking tricks.

The absence of transitional links to support Darwin’s “slight, successive” gradual evolution changes is undeniable. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History concluded -

Paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case.

“It has been the paleontologist, my own breed,” Eldredge opined, “who has been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality.”

In April 2011, British palaeontologist Howard Falcon-Lang at Royal Holloway, University of London, walking through the GBS building of earth sciences spotted an old wooden cabinet hidden in a forgotten corner and “pulled open the door without breaking it, and found a series of drawers containing hundreds of rock samples.”

Normal enough stuff, until he took one out.

“I held it up to the light and tried to make out the words on the slide and there was the signature: C. Darwin, Esquire,” Falcon-Lang says, adding he could “hardly believe it. My heart was pounding all around my body.”

“Inside the drawer were hundreds of beautiful glass slides made by polishing fossil plants into thin translucent sheets,” Dr Falcon-Lang explained. “This process allows them to be studied under the microscope. Almost the first slide I picked up was labeled ‘C. Darwin Esq.’”

The specimen was a piece of fossil wood collected along the South American coast during his famous Voyage of the Beagle in 1834.

Most of the evidence Darwin used has been well documented, but the samples Howard Falcon-Lang accidentally found had been lost because Darwin entrusted them to a fellow scientist, Joseph Dalton Hooker. Hooker did not number these fossils, a problem now for a warehouse with more that 10 million rock samples. Hooker became a close friend of Darwin.

Hooker had assembled this collection of 314 slides while working for the BGS in 1846. The slides – “stunning works of art,” according to Falcon-Lang, contain bits of fossil wood and plants ground into thin sheets and affixed to glass in order to be studied under microscopes.

John Ludden, executive director of BGS said: “This is quite a remarkable discovery. It really makes one wonder what else might be hiding in our collections.”

The discovery was made in April, but it has taken “a long time” to figure out the provenance of the slides and photograph all of them, Falcon-Lang said. The slides have now been photographed and will be made available to the public through a new online museum exhibit opening Tuesday.

“Scientists are only now starting to study it and understand its scientific importance,” according to Falcon-Lang.

“This is quite a remarkable discovery,” John Ludden, executive director of the Geological Survey, said. “It really makes one wonder what else might be hiding in our collections.” Could the fossil wood specimens be Darwin’s holy fossil grail? Probably not.

In The Origin of Species, Darwin never used fossilized trees to as examples of evolutionary transitional forms. While the specimens Falcon-Lang rediscovered are stunning, the specimens failed to capture a convincing attention of Darwin or Hooker. Historically, little evidence has been gleaned from fossilized plants or from fossilized animals.

Even the infamous evolution of the horse story espoused by Darwin in The Origin of Species was disintegrated in the twentieth century.

Grasping for significance in the wood fossil highlights the problem with the theory of evolution – lack of fossil record evidence for Darwin’s “innumerable transition” links in the fossil record.  In fact, the lack of fossilized transitional links was a known problem in 1834, and the problem continues to persist.

“The distinctiveness of specific forms and their not being blended together in innumerable transitional links”, Darwin argued in 1872 edition of The Origin of Species, “is a very obvious difficulty.” Darwin continued, “Geology [the fossil record} assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”

In the words of American evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, “fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy.”

In the Presidential Address at the Geological Association, Derek V. Ager dismayed of the fossil record, went on the record to say, “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student … have now been ‘debunked.”

Senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson, brings the importance of the fossil record into perspective: “Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else.”

While Darwin would not be surprised by Gould, Ager, or at Colin Patterson comments, he would be disappointed in the intense interest in the trivial evidence shown by the media.

The evolution industry was once a theory in crisis, now the evolution industry is in crisis without a theory−with believers begging for any scrap of evidence.

In November 1859, Charles Darwin released the first edition of The Origin of Species. While an instant worldwide sensation – all 1250 copies sold on the first day – critics kept Darwin returning to the drawing board. Over the next thirteen years, Darwin edited, added and deleted major sections of The Origin of Species eventually leading to six editions. The Sixth Edition was published in February 1872.

Now, Ben Fry of Computational Information Design has retraced these evolutionary changes through Darwin’s six editions, chapter by chapter, highlighting the changes in a color-coded greeked version of the text at pixel-scale, as seen in the illustration.

Wordsmithing Darwin’s title, Fly entitled his project “On The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Traces” – substituting “species” with “traces”.

In collaboration with John van Wyhe, founder and director of The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online, Fry graphically details the evolution of Darwin’s book. On the website, Fry animates Darwin’s changes over time starting with the First Edition with the actual specific changes to the text viewable while hovering with the mouse.

According to Fry, this is “a simpler version of a larger effort that looks at the changes between editions, and is intended as the first in a series looking at how the book evolved over time”.

While The Origin of Species started with fourteen chapters, Darwin expanded the number of chapters to fifteen chapters with the addition of “Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection”. It was not until the last edition, the Sixth Edition, Darwin that used the term “evolution” for the first time.

Darwin used the successive editions to address a wide range of criticisms and to align with emerging evolutionary concepts of the time. The key phrase associated with The Origin of Species, “survival of the fittest,” did not appear until the Fifth Edition. In the First Edition, the title of Chapter IV was “Natural Selection.” By the Fifth Edition, the title was changed to “Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest.”

With each successive edition, the length of the book increased, from 3,878 in the first edition to 5,088 sentences. According to Morse Peckham of the University of Pennsylvania Press, between just the Fifth and Sixth Edition, Darwin changed twenty-nine percent of the sentences.

Today, the Sixth Edition is considered Darwin’s final word. Like an artist, though, a creative work is never complete. In 1869, Darwin expressed in a letter to Joseph Hooker that if “I lived twenty more years and was able to work, how I should have to modify the Origin, and how much the views on all points will have to be modified!”

The fact that The Origin of Species is not used at any level, high school or university, in the teaching of scientific principles indicates that Darwin’s work is, in all practicality, philosophical, not scientific. Unlike the natural laws discovered by Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, Darwin was forced to constantly revise his proposed natural law− natural selection.

The constant revisions trapped Darwin into a litany of contradictions on the subject of natural selection. Contradictions on fifteen aspects are detailed in Darwin, Then and Now – The Most Amazing Story in the History of Science.

While arguing that “There is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection” in one context, Darwin flips the argument to “Natural selection will not produce absolute perfection” in another context.

Even Charles Lyle, the founder of modern geology, recognizing the contradictions rejected natural selection as a natural law.

In What Darwin Got Wrong (2010), self-proclaimed “out-right, card-carrying, sign-up, dye-in-the-wool, no-holds barred atheists” Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona pined that “Darwin’s theory of natural selection is fatally flawed” because “the theory of natural selection is internally flawed” and now stands as an “intensional fallacy”.

Keenly aware of the theoretical and practical problems presented in The Origin of Species, in Chapter XIV Darwin, dismissed the mounting criticism. “The several classes of facts which have been considered … innumerable species … are all descended”, argued Darwin, “even if it were unsupported by other facts or arguments.” For Darwin, evolution was considered a fact, even in the absence of scientific evidence.

Amazingly, Darwin clearly recognized the problem with his theory. In a letter to Hugh Falconer in October 1862, Darwin wrote, “I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved to be rubbish.”

Even in the Introduction of The Origin of Species Darwin recognized the inadequacy of the theory: “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.”

Darwin was clearly not satisfied with The Origin of Species. In the same year as the Fifth Edition in 1869, Darwin expressed in a letter to Joseph Hooker that if “I lived twenty more years and was able to work, how I should have to modify the Origin, and how much the views on all points will have to be modified!”

Today, as the Origin of Species evolution continues, Darwin’s influence only continues only as a philosophy, not as a science. The animation developed by Ben Rye illustrates the evolving nature of evolutionary philosophy−not a scientific fact.

“On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man… it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere. But it is useless to speculate on this subject.” Charles Darwin, 1871

On the one hand, speculating on the subject of human origins, was “useless” yet in The Origin of Species, Darwin countered this argument by noting that “We should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor.” Over the past 150 years, then, in the midst of this confusion, evolutionists have continued to look for the intermediate species leading to humans.

With new fossils are continually being found throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe, however, resolving any presumed evolutionary theory on the origins of humans continues to reinforce the long recognized reputation of the evolution industry−constant revision and contention.

Amazingly, the world of paleoanthropology since the publication of The Origin of Species has become a legacy of conflicting personalities and cliquish scientific groups. Some ideas, particularly when they are backed by arguments from authoritative figures in the industry, continue to persist long after they have been proven to be untenable.

In the mid-twentieth century, the evolution debate as to when and where Darwin’s intermediate transitional links gave rise to modern humans diverged from the other great apes became mired in philosophical perspectives−not science.

In particular, one archeologist whose name is synonymous with paleoanthropology, Louis Leaky, was perhaps one of the greatest perpetrators. While Darwin suggested that humans originated from Africa, by the early twentieth century many European scientists were beginning to be convinced otherwise.

In 1912, Charles Dawson presumably discovered a fossil from a gravel pit in the town of Piltdown in East Sussex, England. The new “fossil discovery” was given the named Eoanthropus dawson, now more commonly known as the Piltdown man. In 1913, the Piltdown man was then placed on exhibit in the British Museum of Natural History as fossil for the evolution of humans, even though undermining Darwin’s tenuous out-of-Africa theory.

British scientists, such as Sir Arthur Keith, anthropologist and fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, were so convinced that humans originated in Britain that fossils found in other areas were discredited, especially the South African fossils identified by Raymond Dart in 1925 named Australopithecus africanus. Keith considered Dart’s find, also known by the nickname the Taung Child, as another unimportant species of extinct ape.

In 1938, at the Barkham Manor in Piltdown, Sir Arthur Keith unveiled a memorial to mark the site where Piltdown man was discovered by Charles Dawson. Sir Arthur finished his speech saying:

So long as man is interested in his long past history, in the vicissitudes which our early forerunners passed through, and the varying fare which overtook them, the name of Charles Dawson is certain of remembrance.

Lee Berger, paleontologist from the University of Witwatersrand, suggests that Keith’s philosophy, not science, was the source of his dismissal of the Taung Child.  Unfortunately, over time, as Dart’s colleague Robert Broom began to find more fossil specimens in South Africa, Keith was forced to re-evaluate the Taung Child and his out-of-Europe model of evolution. Then, finally, after decades of display in the museum, in November 1953 the British Museum removed the Piltdown man exhibition because the exhibit was nothing more than an elaborate hoax. The Piltdown man was simply a fraudulent construction of a skull of a man and the jaw of an orangutan.

Nearly a decade later in 1934, a little known American paleontologist from Yale University, G. Edward Lewis, published a paper describing a number of fossil ape species he had discovered in the Siwalik Hills of northern India. Among these apes was a species he named Ramapithecus brevirostris. In 1960, Elwyn Simons pieced together more jawbone fragments and announced the fossils as evidence for the evolutionary origin of humans from ape-like animals.

This out-of-India theory ran in opposition to the more popular out-of-Africa model of human evolution theory espoused by paleoanthropologists in the early 1960s lead by Louis Leaky. In particular, Leaky argued that the series of fossil his team discovered in east Africa later named Kenyapithecus africanus was the evolutionary origin of humans.

Even though Simons’ fragmentary jaw of Ramapithecus was hardly a match for Leaky’s Kenyapithecus, the Kenyapithecus was never been too far out of the woods. Ramapithecus had supporters. During the 1950’s, the renowned paleoanthropologist Wilfrid Le Gros Clark, who along with Joseph Weiner and Kenneth Oakley who had exposed the British Museum Piltdown man fraud, advanced the argument in support of Ramapithecus as the more likely evolutionary origin of humans based on dental arcade.

While the dental arcade of Ramapithecus was V-shaped, similar to humans, by contrast the Kenyapithecus the dental arcade was U-shaped.

During the mid-twentieth century, the Simons Ramapithecus camp versus Leaky Kenyapithecus camp debate raged. Leaky was stuck on the out-of-Africa model largely from Darwin’s vague endorsement of the out-of-Africa model.

Although these two hypotheses were in direct opposition to each other, they were linked by a central anthropocentric principle. Both believed the apes were the evolutionary origins of humans. Perhaps because Leaky followed Darwin’s suggestion, he tyrannically gained the most support.

When confronted with scientific evidence opposing the theory, Leaky was known to attack the individual instead of the evidence. This is best exemplified by an event that transpired at an anthropological conference in Chicago in 1965. David Pilbeam was giving a presentation in which he was attempting to argue that Kenyapithecus africanus was actually a member of the previously identified Dryopithecus nyanzae species. This incident is recounted in Virgina Morell’s Ancestral Passions: the Leaky family and the quest for humankind’s beginnings (1996: 291):

At an anthropological conference in 1965, [Louis Leaky] jumped up and shouted at David Pilbeam, who was giving a presentation, to sit down and shut up… Terrified and appalled, Pilbeam looked around the room for someone to come to his defense. But no one – not even Pilbeam’s thesis advisor or the conference chairman– spoke up.

With chaos and contention abounding in the realms of paleontology, evolutionary scientist focused on evidence from biochemistry and genetics.

In the early 1960s, Morris Goodman, a pioneering biochemist at Wayne State University, caused even greater controversy after discovering that human blood proteins were more similar to chimpanzee and gorilla blood proteins than to apes, like Simons’ Ramapithecus or Leaky’s Kenyapithecus.

From this new biochemistry controversy, anthropologist Sherwood Washburn of Harvard University and Vincent Sarich, biochemist of the University of California, Berkley, suggested that the chimpanzee was evolutionary intermediate species leading to the origin of man, not Simons’ Ramapithecus nor Leaky’s Kenyapithecus.

The battle lines were drawn: Simons against Leaky, and Simon and Leaky against the ranks of Pilbeam, Goodman, Washburn, and Sarich.

The prospects of Ramapithecus as a transitional link to man were finally exhausted in 1982 following a systematic review by anthropologist Milford E. Wolpoff at the University of Michigan. While Simons conceded, Leaky died in 1972 without ever seeing the light.

Amazingly, the remenints of the Leaky saga are still at large, including physical anthropologist Jeffery Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh and president of the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS).

More than 150 years ago, Darwin was on target when he said “it is useless to speculate on this subject”. Since then, paleoanthropological perspectives on presumed evolutionary origin of humans has been laced with a legacy of contention fueled only by philosophy−not science.

This week a team of scientists from Australia and Spain lead by John R. Paterson, a paleontologist at the University of New England in Australia, extended even further Darwin’s dilemma.

The paper entitled “Acute vision in the giant Cambrian predator Anomalocaris and the origin of compound eyes” published in the December 8 edition of the journal Nature, a vanguard of evolution, amazingly unveiled the advanced and complex nature of the eyes in this arthropod. Unlike any other known counterpart, past or present, this underwater sea creature has bizarrely positioned eyes at the top of two stalks that extend bilaterally from the sides of the head. Anomalocaris, derived from the word anomaly, means abnormal or strange shrimp.

In a prepared statement, Paterson said that the “Anomalocaris is the stuff of nightmares”−a nightmare for the evolution industry. The problem is that the bizarre eyes appear in the Cambrian fossil record with no known ancestor−Darwin’s worst nightmare.

Not only is the position and shape of the stalk eyes an evolutionary enigma, so is the advanced nature of this large shrimp-like animal two pear-shaped eyes. According to Paterson’s report, each eye of this 3 to 6 foot long enigma contains at least 16,000 hexagonal lenses far exceeding the number of lenses in most modern groups with vision as keen as the sharpest insect alive today.

Contrary to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, there is no evidence for any simpler pre-Cambrian or Cambrian ancestor. Cambrian fossilized animals were highly complex and sophisticated. Evidence demonstrates that complex morphologies of the Anomalocaris appeared in Cambrian Explosion then disappeared suddenly.

The international team studied the fossil remains from a shale quarry discovered on Kangaroo Island, just off the southern coast of Australia. The shale formation, known as Emu Bay shale, is noted for stunning preservation of soft tissue, like the eyes, as well as skeletal remains. The first Anomalocaris was discovered by Charles Dolittle Watcott in 1909 in the famed Burgess Shale. Historically, the Anomalocaris had a cosmopolitan distribution in the Cambrian seas. Fossils of Anomalocaris have been discovered in Canada, China, and in Australia.

The discovery and analysis of Anomalocaris eyes “confirms that it had superb vision to support its predatory lifestyle”, according to Paterson. “Such lens-rich compound eyes suggest Anomalocaris was a highly visual hunter. Its prey didn’t stand a chance.”

Pete Spotts, staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor, noted in the article entitled “Jeepers, creepers, where did the Cambrian ocean’s top predator get those peepers?” the real evolutionary problem with the discovery:  “the presence of these eyes at this stage in the evolution of life on Earth indicates how quickly, in geologic time, novel features can emerge.” Stated nicely, this presents a serious theoretical conundrum for evolution.

“If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once,” according to Darwin, “the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection”. Clearly, the Anomalocaris is scientific evidence contradicting Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

In an interview, New Scientist quoted Paterson: “Very few modern animals, particularly arthropods, have eyes as sophisticated as this”. With at least 16,000 lenses on each eye, “This is a lot,” says Paterson. “The common housefly has only 3,200 and most ants have fewer than 1,000.”

Matt Kaplan, science writer for Nature News quoted Paterson commenting on the article in the Nature journal entitled “An eye-opening fossil. Ancient predators had vision sharper than modern insects” that while Dragonflies have up to 28,000 lenses in each eye they are “the freaks of the arthropods”.

Not only is the Anomalocaris a freak of arthropods, the Anomalocaris is a freak of evolution. Contrary to Darwin’s theory, the Anomalocaris suddenly appears then disappears in the Cambrian fossil record.  Rather than clarity, the resurrected Anomalocaris has delivered another insurrection within the disorganized ranks of the evolution industry.

Like the Archaeopteryx, the Anomalocaris highlights why evolution continues to be a theory in crisis. Today, theories of evolution continue only as a philosophy unsupported by scientific evidence. Robert Gaines, palaeobiologist at Pomona College in Claremont, California, who was not involved in the study understates the implications: “This could stir up a debate“.

The pristine condition of the Anomalocaris soft tissue, a freak of evolution, can best be explained by an act of creation that was instantaneously fossilized while still alive during the flood. The empirical scientific evidence from the Anomalocaris highlights even further why Darwin’s theory is increasingly irrelevant.

At the center of the raging theory of evolution debates, Margulis emerged as a strong critic of Darwin during the late twentieth century. In the words of Margulis, “Darwin’s claim of ‘descent with modification’ as caused by natural selection is a linguistic fallacy”.

In an interview with Australian journalist Suzan Mazur, Margulis poignantly explains her aversion to the Darwinian notion of evolution:

Darwin wrote about the Struggle for Life and attributed change to Natural Selection. He made it easy for his contemporaries to think and verbalize Mr. Big Omnipotent God in the Sky up there picking out those He wants to keep. He has been conceived as the The Natural Selector, He throws the others away.

Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, promoted the theory that natural selection was the driving force of evolution to advance the origin of new species. For Margulis, however, “natural selection is an elimination process”, not creative of life or new species.

Margulis was not even a friend of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that developed in the early twentieth century based on the population genetic work of J.B.S. Haldane and R.A. Fisher, either:

The notion is that if we accumulate enough gene change, enough genetic mutations, we explain the passage from one species to another. This is depicted as two branches in a family tree that emerge from one common ancestor to the two descendants. An entire Anglophone academic tradition of purported evolutionary description was developed quantified, computerized based on what I think is a conceptual topological error.

In the words of Margulis, “neo-Darwinists are a… religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology… Speciation by accumulation of ‘random DNA mutations’ has never been adequately documented.”

“I work in evolutionary biology,” Margulis opined, “but with cells and micro-organisms. Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould all come out of the zoological tradition, which suggests to me that, in the words of our colleague Simon Robson, they deal with a data set some three billion years out of date.”

Margulis highlighted the plague of the modern evolution industry: “Scientists, like anyone else, follow the money flow.”

Margulis proposed to replace the various versions of Darwinian evolution with a more friendly version of evolution based on symbiosis. Bruce Weber in the New York Times, explain: “Dr. Margulis argued that a more important mechanism was symbiosis; that is, evolution is a function of organisms that are mutually beneficial growing together to become one and reproducing.”

Margulis’ gentler theory of symbiosis is in sharp contrast to Darwin’s angry “survival of the fittest” theory later coined as “nature red in tooth and claw” by poet Alfred Lord Tennyson. They were born in the same year−1809.

In the Scientific American article, “R.I.P. Lynn Margulis, Biological Rebel”, John Horgan noted that “Lynn Margulis was among the most creative challengers of mainstream Darwinian thinking of the late 20^th century.”

Margulis was not alone. The evolution industry is now composed of a range of evolutionary scientists like Margulis.  Larry Moran, Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, categorizes evolutionists based on three different points of view−the Standard View, the New View, and the Radical View.

In the Standard View, the likes of Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Sean B. Carroll, and Ken Miller continue advocating the traditional basic tenets of Darwinism. The New View, as supported by Stephen Jay, Michael Lynch, and Eugene Koonin, only retains a basic notion of Darwinian natural selection. The Radical View, to which Moran categorizes Margulis, completely abandons Darwin’s theory of evolution. Marc Kirschner, John Gerhart, James Shapiro, Dorion Sagan, Massimo Pigliucci, and Gerd B. Müller are included in Moran’s Radical View category.

Reflecting on the life of Lynn Margulis provides the time evaluate the state of the evolution industry. Moran laments the fact that after 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species, a unified theory of evolution still continues as only an elusive abstraction.

The problem: “People are always more loyal to their tribal group,” Margulis protested, “than to any other abstract notion of ‘truth’—scientists especially.” Out of fear, tribal theories of evolution reject the truth to maintain tribal loyalty.

With the technology available, the reach of science to discovering the origins and meaning of life has reached a scientific dead-end. The concept of evolution continues only as a philosophy, not as a science.

Evolution was once a theory in crisis, now the evolution industry is in crisis without even a theory. Margulis will be remembered.

Just two months before the release of the first edition of The Origin of Species in September 1859, Darwin wrote to Charles Lyell, “Embryology in Chapter VIII is one of my strongest points I think.”

Founded as a field of science by German biologist Karl Ernst von Baer (1792–1876), embryology was just an emerging science in the nineteenth century. As the first to discover the mammalian ovum, Baer is now recognized as the founder of modern embryology.

With the available technologies of the nineteenth century, Baer formulated a set of laws now known as Baer’s Law. According to Baer, the general characteristic of a group to which an embryo belongs develops before special characteristics.  Embryonic changes were thought to be the driving force to produce the final form.

Extending the implications of Baer’s Law, German biologists Fritz Müller (1821–1897) and Ernest Haeckel (1834–1919) popularized the controversial “recapitulation theory.” Haeckel was the one who actively promoted that a species’ embryological development (ontogeny) retraces the species’ entire evolutionary development (phylogeny).

Haeckel coined this theory with the now-famous phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” In other words, the sequences of the embryo retrace the steps of evolution. Haeckel’s version of Baer’s Law was called the Biogenic Law. In theory, then, seeing the human embryo grow would be like watching a silent movie of our ancestral history and presumably evolution in action.

Darwin was not an embryologist, and instead relied on the work of others. In The Origin of Species, Darwin gave credit for the embryological model of evolution to Haeckel: “Professor Haeckel in his “Generelle Morphologie” and in [other] works has recently brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he calls phylogeny, or the lines of descent of all organic beings. In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters [to establish evolutionary sequences].”

Eventually, Haeckel’s concepts of embryology became “second to none in importance” to Darwin’s theory. “Thus, as it seems to me,” Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species, “the leading facts in embryology,…  are second to none in importance.”

In the opening paragraph of the “Development and Embryology” section of The Origin of Species, Darwin explains that embryology “is one of the most important subjects in the whole round of natural history.”

With advances in technology, however, Haeckel’s theory eventually did not survive the twentieth century. In 1958, eminent British embryologist Gavin de Beer published three editions of a book on embryology attacking Haeckel’s “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” theory: “Recapitulation…. i.e., the pressing back of adult ancestral stages into early stages of development of descendants, does not take place.”

Pointing to a number of examples known at the time, de Beer was highly critical of the Haeckel’s theory. One of de Beer’s examples was the development of the eye in two closely related species of frog, Rana fusca and Rana esculents. (Pictured)

Since the lenses of these frog eyes appear to be structurally similar (homologous), the embryological development of these two species would be expected to be similar based on Haeckel’s theory. But, the evidence fails to support Haeckel’s theory. De Beer explains the common frog example:

It was a problem to know why the lens of the vertebrate eye, which develops from the epidermis overlying the optic cup, should develop exactly in the ‘right’ place, and fit into the optic cup so perfectly, until it was discovered that the optic cup is itself an organizer which induces the epidermis to differentiate into a tailor-made lens. At least, this is what it does in the common frog, Rana fusca, in the embryo of which, if the optic cup is cut out, no lens develops at all. But in the closely related edible frog, Rana esculent, the optic cup can be cut out from the embryo, and the lens develops all the same. It cannot be doubted that the lenses of these two species are homologous [similar], yet they differ completely in the mechanism [embryology] by which determines and differentiation are brought about.

Evidence from the common frog demonstrates that similar species do not have similar embryological development. De Beer concluded that the “enthusiasm of the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information.” Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton explains: “homologous [similar] structures are arrived at by different [embryological] routes.” Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny.

Evidence from these two closely species of frog demonstrate that not only is the embryology completely different, the evidence undermines Haeckel’s proposed Biogenic Law upon which formulated the core of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

No wonder George Gaylord Simpson of the American Museum of Natural History was quick to the chase denouncing Haeckel’s Biogenic Law: it “is now established that ontology does not repeat phylogeny.”

German embryologist Erich Blechschmidt of the University of Guttingen regarded Haeckel’s “Great Biogenetic Law” as one of the most egregious errors in the history of biology. In his book The Beginnings of Human Life, no words were minced in repudiating Haeckel’s fraudulent forgeries: “The so-called basic law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong.”

Amazing, in 1909 Haeckel announced that his embryo drawings in support of evolution were mere fabrications−fraud.

Intuitively, Darwin knew something was wrong. Just two years after the release of the first edition of The Origin of Species, Darwin was absolutely right in stating, “I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved to be rubbish.”

Contrary to Darwin’s nineteenth century misguided enthusiasm, embryology now stands as one of the “strongest single class of facts” against any theory of evolution.

In February of 2009, research diver Jiro Sakaue, descending into a dark fringing reef cave in the Pacific Ocean Republic of Palau, discovered a small unusual eel-like fish. The species of the fish has since been named Protaguillae palau. Prot(o) means prototype, first, or original, guilla means eel (a shortened form of Anguilliformes - an order of fish) with palau referring to the discovery location.

The problem for the theory of evolution centers on the fact that this species has continued to exist even though it is recognized as a prototype – the first and most primitive form of the species. According to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, though, as the original species begin to evolve, extinction of the “less improved and intermediate forms of life” should follow. Darwin explains in The Origin of Species:

We have seen that it is the common, the widely diffused, and widely ranging species, belonging to the larger genera within each class, which vary most; and these tend to transmit to their modified off spring that superiority which now makes them dominant in their own countries. Natural selection, as has just been remarked, leads to divergence of character and to much extinction of the less improved and intermediate forms of life.

Darwin’s even infers this concept in the full title of The Origin of Species–The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life. Accordingly, the favored races are to be preserved while the “less improved and “intermediate forms of life” are not. Darwin explains:

The theory of natural selection is grounded on the belief that each new variety and ultimately each new species, is produced and maintained by having some advantage over those with which it comes into competition; and the consequent extinction of less-favoured forms almost inevitably follows.

For Darwin, “extinction and natural selection go hand in hand” and one “must suppose that there is a power, represented by natural selection or the survival of the fittest, always intently watching each slight alteration … until a better is produced, and then the old ones to be all destroyed.” Extinction is an integral aspect of natural selection.

If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true, then, the proto-eel should have become extinct, but it didn’t. The evidence for the continued existence of the ancient proto-eel clearly undermines Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

The scientific report of the finding, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society on-line in August headed by G. David Johnson of the Smithsonian Institute, was entitled A ‘living fossil’ eel (Anguilliformes: Protanguillidae, fam. nov.) from an undersea cave in Palau. The comparative morphology and genetic report notes the problem in the opening sentence:

We report the discovery of an enigmatic, small eel-like fish from a 35 m-deep fringing-reef cave in the western Pacific Ocean Republic of Palau that exhibits an unusual suite of morphological characters.

The discovery is certainly enigmatic for a number of reasons. Johnson notes that it is “even more primitive than the oldest known fossil eels”, yet still in existence. Since evolutionists estimate that the family of eels arrived over 200 million years ago, the proto-eel finding demonstrates evidence for stasis, not evolution.

John McCosker, chair of Aquatic Biology at the California Academy of Sciences, sums up the evolution enigma:

The analysis they have performed using morphology and genetics is brilliant and invites as many questions about eel evolution as it solves.

In other words, the eel discovery is a problem for the Darwin’s theory of natural selection. The scientific evidence from morphology and genetics has created an even greater insurmountable problem for the theory of evolution. What should have become part of the fossil record has been swimming around presumably unchanged for over 200 million years. In other words, Protaguillae palau spontaneously came out of the box functioning in perfection. That’s not evolution.

With evidence like this, professors Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini in the book What Darwin Got Wrong have been driven to conclude that “Darwin’s theory of natural selection is fatally flawed. Not only is flawed, even the concept of natural selection is simply an ‘intentional fallacy’.”

Michael Ruse agrees, “the truth is that there is virtually nothing today in evolutionary studies that corresponds to the facts of the Origin.” Even Jerry Coyne of Chicago University Evolution and Ecology Department has been driven to conclude:

We conclude—unexpectedly—that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.

Reflecting on the significance of this ancient evolution defying eel, is reason to consider the wisdom of Mark Twain:

Loyalty to petrified opinion never once broke a chain or freed a human soul.

The use of the term Anti-Science today has evolved to mean anti-evolution and anti-climate change. How candidates manage the “evolution” question will likely leverage an effect on the final vote next year.” Question like “Do you believe in evolution” are now one of the most dreaded types of questions on the political campaign trail. But, what is Anti-Science? As we will see, the history of the Anti-Science is an amazing saga of irony.

At the core of the Anti-Science debate is the definition of Science. The Oxford English Dictionary says that science is “a method of procedures that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

The father of “method of procedures” is the Scientific Method founded by English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Use of Bacon’s method launched the Scientific Revolution in the late sixteenth century.

Often called the Baconian Method, or simply the Scientific Method, Bacon replaced deductive reasoning with strict adherence to inductive reasoning for the purpose of discovering natural laws, Bacon’s insistence on establishing a planned procedure marked a new turn for defining the essence of science.

Using Bacon’s method of investigation, the early Scientific Revolution period culminated in 1687with the publication of the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton. Darwin initially followed the footsteps of Newton. In the same way Newton discovered the natural laws of gravity and motion, Charles Darwin was intent on discovering the natural laws of evolution.

The Scientific Revolution was center stage in the eighteenth century. John Herschel’s book, Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy (1830), encapsulated the concepts of the scientific method. Darwin read Herschel’s Discourse while at Cambridge. William Whewell, a professor at the University of Cambridge, supported Herschel’s approach to the scientific method and later published The History of Inductive Sciences (1837) and The Philosophy of Inductive Sciences (1840).

In the prelude to The Origin of Species, Darwin quotes from William Whewell and Francis Bacon. Ironically, since even the fossil record failed to support his theory, Darwin was forced to abandon the Scientific Method.  Darwin was painfully aware that the Cambrian Explosion actually contradicted his theory.

In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”.

When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.”  Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.  The “Anti-Science” movement was popular in the nineteenth century, sponsored by the emerging influential members of the X Club.

Darwin was very concerned about the effect of the Anti-Science approach. Just two weeks before the lease of The Origin of Species, Erasmus Darwin, his brother, consoled him in a letter: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”

In the final chapter of The Origin of Species, Darwin actually only lends hedging confidence to his theory of evolution, noting that the “whole volume is one long argument.… We ought to be extremely cautious in saying that any organ or instinct, or any whole structure, could not have arrived at its present state by many graduated steps.”

Ironically, the use of the popular Anti-Science labeling in politics should be applied to Charles Darwin−the founder of modern evolutionary thought.

Paul Nurse, writing in the September 14 edition of the New Scientist in the article “Stamp out anti-science in US politics” said, “Get the science right first, then discuss the political implications.”

The fact is, the evidence for developing a comprehensive theory of evolution is more in a crisis now, than at any time since the turn of the twenty-first century. As the evidence continues to mount, scientists are now abandoning the once central unifying dogma of evolution established during the late twentieth century−the Modern Synthesis theory that had replaced Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The Altenberg Summit in Austria during the summer of 2008 was a turning point for the evolution industry. At the summit, leading evolutionary scientists declared the Modern Synthesis theory of evolution extinct. Genetic mutations acted on by natural selection are no longer recognized as the natural law for biological evolution.

In the wake of the summit, evolutionary scientists are feverishly in the process of exploring theoretical replacements. The MIT Press book, “Evolution, the Extended Synthesis” (2010) edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B Műller presents 16 potential theories from the summit. Yet, none of the potential replacement theories have emerged as a forerunner. Currently, a cohesive theory of evolution simply does not exist.

Political candidates on both sides of the isle should actually be asked the question: “What is the theory of evolution?”

As it stands, evolution is simply a philosophy and not a science based on any known natural law verified by “systematic observation, measurement, and experiment(s)”. Ironically, the theory of evolution in the twenty-first century, as Darwin plainly acknowledged during the nineteenth century, falls into the realm of Anti-Science, not Science.

Presidential candidate, Jon Huntsman, highlights the current conundrum. In an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News “Special Report”, Huntsman said “When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on wrong side of science and therefore in a losing position.”

Amazingly, notice that Huntsman had to turn to “climate scientist[s]” to garner a mirage of scientific support for the theory of evolution.  Even the National Science Teachers Association, the vanguard of evolution in public education, takes distance from any particular theory of evolution by concluding: “There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place.”

Today, evolution is only alive as a philosophy but not as a science. Contrary to Huntsman’s contention, to claim biological evolution as a scientifically proven fact plays into the realm of Anti-Science.

No wonder, Alan Love of the University of Minnesota and one of the Altenberg Summit members concluded that “a fully unified view of evolutionary processes may be out of reach.”

Ironically, the Anti-Science label applies to the sponsors of evolution. By Oxford English Dictionary standards, the Science label only applies to the “Teach the Controversy” sponsors.

Since steroid hormones are known to perform sophisticated regulatory functions in microbes to man, the path of steroid evolution has entered center stage in the realm of investigative molecular biology.

Steroids hormones were first discovered in the mid-twentieth century by American chemist Edward Calvin Kendall while working at the Mayo Clinic. In 1950, Kendall and colleague Philip Hench, along with Swiss chemist Tadeus Reichstein were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for “their discoveries relating to the hormones of the adrenal cortex, their structure and biological effects.”

The action of steroids occurs by attaching to specific receptor sites. Steroids act like a socket wrench on a bolt−a wrench that is only useful when aligned on the right sized bolt.

Corticosteroids are a class of steroids found in vertebrates.  One of the corticosteroid classes are the glucocorticoids. Glucocorticoids (glucose + cortex + steroid) are essential for life, acting to regulate and support a range of important cardiovascular, metabolic, immunologic, and homeostatic functions.

This past June, evolutionary biologist Sean Carroll and colleagues in the journal PLoS Genetics published a paper entitled “Mechanisms for the Evolution of a Derived Function in the Ancestral Glucocorticoid Receptor”.

Using site-directed mutagenesis, X-ray crystallography, and computational analyses of protein stability to recapitulate and determine the effects of historical mutations, Carroll investigated a range of potential pathways for the evolution of ancestral steroid receptors by genetic mutations to the glucocorticoid receptor in vertebrates.

Carroll suggests that the evolution of the vertebrate glucocorticoid receptor from an ancestral receptor type likely required three specific genetic mutations. Surprisingly, two of the mutations, while maintaining function individually, actually inactivates the receptor. The third mutation simply neutralizes the inactivation effect of the two previous mutations.

“The combined effect of these mutations is so strong that a third mutation, apparently neutral in the ancestral background,” Carroll explains, “evolved to buffer their degenerative effects.”

Assuming these two dysfunctional mutation followed by a neutralizing genetic mutation did occur, what is the probability that this series of events occurred by chance alone?

In “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design”, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins contends that evolution proceeds blindly without direction−evolution is like a blind watchmaker. Dawkins wagers on chance.  Darwin disagrees: “Mere chance, as we may call it, might cause one variety to differ in some character from its parents …, but this alone would never account for so habitual and large a degree of difference as that between the species of the same genus.”

The evidence, however, favors Darwin’s contention−not Dawkins.  Doug Axe, Director of the Biologic Institute, and molecular geneticist Ann Gauger in the paper “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway” demonstrated that for the conversion of one functional molecule to another requires a minimum of seven genetic mutations.  Based on a realistic population genetics model, Axe and Gauger demonstrated that each mutation would require 10²⁷ years. That’s a ten followed by 27 zeros.

The question is what is the chance of converting one functional molecule to another? Assuming that the estimated age of the universe is 13 billion years−that’s 13,000,000,000 (13 followed by 9 zeros), the time required to convert Carroll’s ancestral receptor to a vertebrate glucocorticoid receptor exceeds the time limits of the universe. Carroll, of course, did not consider time limitations. The probable role of chance, contrary to Dawkin’s earlier presumption, far exceeds the time limits of the universe.

These time constraints on evolution by genetic mutations are just one of the reasons why evolutionary scientists have largely abandoned the Modern Synthesis theory of evolution originally developed during the twentieth century following the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA.

The 2008 Altenberg Summit hosted by Massimo Pigliucci of Stony Brook University and Gerd B Műller of University of Vienna. The sixteen evolutionary attendees of the summit, while dismissing the Modern Synthesis, proposed a series of new theoretical frameworks for evolution.

While Carroll’s approach to solving theoretical evolutionary problems was noble, evolution through genetic mutations is no longer the leading theory of evolution. Currently, the problem in evolution circles today is that disbanded Modern Synthesis theory of evolution has not been replaced by another unifying theory of evolution. Evolution, the Extended Synthesis published by MIT Press discusses alternatives to the Modern Synthesis.

Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti succinctly summed up the problem with evolution: “There never really has been a scientific theory of evolution.”

Currently, a cohesive theory of evolution does not exist. Carroll’s recent experiments further highlights why genetic mutations are no longer considered a viable mechanism for biological evolution.

In fact, the discovery was a problem since the Neanderthal skulls are larger than human skulls. Darwin had argued that the advancement of evolution proceeded through “slight, successive changes”.

The Neanderthal fossils created a dilemma for Darwin, how could a larger brain precede a smaller brain? Darwin cautiously noted, that “it must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious [large]”. For Darwin, the Neanderthal skulls were too large to have preceded humans.

As the fossil evidence for the Neanderthals continued to be discovered throughout Europe, the evidence seemed to point to the Neanderthals as a big game hunter transitional species leading to humans. With the goal of discovering our human evolutionary ancestors, the possibility that the Neanderthals represented a previously unknown ethnic group of humans was marginalized within the evolution industry.

During the twentieth century, at stake is whether the Neanderthals are a transitional species different from modern humans, or simply a human ethnic group.

Darwin, as we know now, was right to be cautious. Technology is answering the question. Just last year, a team lead by Svante Pääbo of the Department of Evolutionary Genetics at the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany eroded the genetic difference between the Neanderthals and modern humans after publishing the full Neanderthal genome.

Commenting on the findings, John Hawks, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin, told BBC News that “They’re us. We’re them.”

“[T]he really surprising thing for many of us,” noted Professor Chris Stringer, research leader in human origins at London’s Natural History Museum, “is the implication that there has been some interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans in the past.” Since different species cannot interbreed, the Neanderthals can no longer be considered a transitional species.

Gregory Hannon of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Laurel Hollow in New York concluded that the “publication of the full Neanderthal genome is a watershed event, a major historical achievement.” Genetic evidence is clear−the Neanderthals are not genetically distinct from modern humans.

This past week, Bruce L. Hardy of Kenyon College in Ohio and Marie-Hélène Moncel of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris has further eroded the differences between the Neanderthals and modern Humans using anthropological evidence.

In the journal PLoS ONE this past week, Hardy and Moncel in the article “Neanderthal Use of Fish, Mammals, Birds, Starchy Plants and Wood 125-250,000 Years Ago”, further dispels anthropological differences between the Neanderthals and Humans.

Hardy and Moncel dispels the Neanderthal big game hunter myth: the “Neanderthals are most often portrayed as big game hunters who derived the vast majority of their diet from large terrestrial herbivores while birds, fish and plants are seen as relatively unimportant or beyond the capabilities of Neanderthals.”

At the fossil site in Payre, France, after evaluating 182 Neanderthal plant, fish and bird processing tools based in the wear and adhering biological residues on the tools, Hardy and Moncel  concluded that contrary to the once popular big game hunted paradigm, the Neanderthal diet “was quite diverse, including plants, large and small animals, fish, and possibly birds.”

“Neanderthals practiced what has been considered exclusively modern human behavior”,  Hardy and Moncel concluded. In other words, the diet of the Neanderthal is not different from modern Human.

These discoveries using previously unknown technologies continue to erode the differences rather than supporting the concept that the Neanderthals are an ancestral transitional link to human. The evolution industry is now tasked with discovering a better potential ancestral transitional link to humans.

Amazingly, birth control was a hot topic during the elections of 1868 in England. Segments of Victorian liberalism lead by Charles Bradlaugh, one of the most famous atheists of the nineteenth century, drove his election campaign in Northhampton on the platform of electoral reform and birth control.

As founder of the National Secular Society established in 1866, Bradlaugh promoted birth control as a means to rescue English working people from poverty. The National Secular Society represented a radical segment liberalism. Poverty was considered the result of over-population based on Thomas Malthus principle of economics. Branded as vicious obscenity, methods for birth control were promoted in his sixpenny pamphlet entitled The Fruits of Philosophy.

The British Parliament was not amused. Charges of blasphemy and sedition were served against Bradlaugh and co-publisher, Annie Besant, by Parliament. Bradlaugh and Besand were tried at London’s Central Criminal Court for their “doctrine of the limitation of the family” and the reckless promotion of do-it-yourself contraception. Like today, birth control was center stage in the popular media.

Bradlaugh challenged the Victorian liberalism movement. Darwin was appalled when he was subpoened to testify two weeks before the trial in favor of the defense. Assuming that the author of The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man would defend them, Bradlaugh and Besant were surprised when Darwin informed them that “if forced to testify,” in the words of Adrian Desmond and James Moore, “he would have to denounce the defendants, for he had ‘long held an opposite opinion’ on birth control.

As proof, Darwin sent the defense a quote from The Descent of Man: “our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils must not be greatly diminished by any means.”

Darwin further explained that any “artificial means of preventing conception,” would likely “spread to unmarried women & w destroy chastity on which the family bond depends; and the weakening of this bond would be the greatest of all possible evils to mankind.”

Darwin’s position against the Bradlaugh and Besant defense was emphatic: “my judgment would be in the strongest opposition to yours.”

Bradlaugh and Besant eventually withdrew their subpoena. Even though they were found guilty and sentenced with heavy fines and six months of imprisonment, the conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal on a legal technicality. Twenty years later, Bradlaugh eventually gained a voting seat in the Parliament long after Darwin had been laid to rest in 1882.

Darwin was clearly against the forerunner of Planned Parenthood. Unless the Descent of Man was re-written, Darwin would have stood in sharp opposition to the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger—a fact clearly avoided by the current liberal establishments.

Natural selection, the proposed natural law driving the progress of evolution, was envisioned by Darwin, on the one hand, with powers like that of a deity: It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets?

Natural selection was the power “insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers”. Natural selection is not limited by space or time, acting “daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations.”

This deity guiding the unlimited power of evolution was envisioned to select the good and “reject the bad” -

What limit can be put to this [natural selection] power, acting during long ages and rigidly scrutinising the whole constitution, structure, and habits of each creature, favouring the good and rejecting the bad? I can see no limit to this power, in slowly and beautifully adapting each form to the most complex relations of life.

Darwin continues to envision “that there is a power, represented by natural selection or the survival of the fittest, always intently watching each slight alteration … until a better is produced, and then the old ones to be all destroyed.” Natural selection has the power to select the good and destroy the bad.

Then, Darwin hoodwinks natural selection with powerlessness, on the other hand –

Natural selection will be powerless in certain beneficial directions.

Darwin explains that “natural selection … [has] no power to check deviations in structure.” Limiting the power of natural selection further, Darwin envisions that once an organ becomes useless, even though it was originally formed by natural selection, the variations of the organ “can no longer even be checked by natural selection.”

The hoodwinking on the power of natural selection underscores why The Origin of Species can never used as a scientific text—anywhere. While evolution is a bonafide philosophy, Darwin’s theory remains simply just a philosophy—not a scientific fact. Eminent evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts echoes the now obvious consensus -

Neo-Darwinists are a… religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology.

Central to the origin of life issue is the question, what is life? The journal Astrobiology in December 2010 featured a collection of essays on the topic “What is Life?” organized by David Deamer of the University of California, Santa Cruz, by asking the question, “Can life be defined?”

An international team from France and Mexico, Stephane Tirard, Michel Morange, Antonio Lazcano answered the call with “The Definition of Life: A Brief History of an Elusive Scientific Endeavor”, with the reply, no:

Life is an empirical concept; and, as suggested by the many unsuccessful efforts to define it, this task is likely to remain, at best, a work in progress.” Noting that “between the non-living and the living… it may be meaningless to draw a strict line between them.

Mark A. Bedau, Professor of Philosophy and Humanities at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, agrees with Tirard, Moranage, and Lazcano:

This problem is controversial, and there is nothing approaching a consensus about what life is.

From Yale University, Steven A. Benner currently with the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution notes,

Any definition is intricately connected to a theory that gives it meaning.

In other words, the theory of life determines the definition of life—circular reasoning, a tautology at its best. In the context of evolution, “Darwinian evolution might itself be forced to change as supra-Darwinian species emerge… in our exploration of the Cosmos.”

To conclude the collection, Deamer includes an essay entitled “A Theory of Circular Organization and Negative Feedback” published in the journal Astrobiology by the late Sergey Tsokolo, molecular biology professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz:

Because life could not exist in their absence, [biochemical] feedback loops should be included in definitions of life.

According to these astrobiologists, life is definable only in the terms of molecular functions. Italian geneticist and editor of the longest running biology journal in the world, Giuseppe Sermonti in the book “Why a Fly is Not a Horse” disagrees: “biochemical complexity has little to offer in explaining evolution”, and hence the definition of life.

No wonder Sermonti has been driven to conclude –

Evolution is really more of a paradigm or methodology than a theory.

Sermonti notes further,

Molecular biology has cultivated a passion for abstract ‘life’.

Life is simply indefinable in the context of an evolutionary theory. No wonder, evolutionary Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University, Jerry Fodor, has been driven to conclude -

Astrobiology doesn’t exist.

Robert Hazen, of the Carnegie Institution of Washington explains in an interview with Suzan Mazur why astrobiology continues to exist

Astrobiology is growing tremendously because there is a stable source of funding. Let’s face it. Science is a social endeavor. If people can get jobs, they’re going to go into the field. Right now NASA and other government agencies and also non-government agencies are putting money into this.

NASA established the Astrobiology Program in 1996. Now, the study of astrobiology is the primary reason for the existence of NASA. In their own words,

Astrobiology is a cross-cutting theme in all of NASA’s space science endeavors, knitting together research in astrophysics, earth science, and heliophysics as well as planetary science.

The evolution industry captures a major fraction of government funded science programs. After more than a decade, however, even NASA has failed in answering Deamer’s basic question, “What is Life?”

“Biologists have been unable to agree on a definition of the complex phenomenon known as ‘life’,” according to Mary Ann Liebert, writing for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest general scientific society. Liebert’s article was featured in ScienceDaily, January 13, 2011.

Amazingly, Darwin faired better. In facing the essence of life issue, starting with the second edition of The Origin of Species, Darwin included the following phrase in the final paragraph all the subsequent editions -

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator.

With certainty, Louis Pasteur’s principle Omne vivum ex vivo, all life comes from life, is the essence of life, as illustrated by Michelangelo—not as a mindless product of cosmic chaos over eons of time.

The U.S. government should stop funding the insane notions, like finding the essence of life through astrobiology. The essence of life originated beyond the realm of natural laws.

References available upon request.

Bernard Kettlewell in the early 1950’s was the first to design an experiment to test Darwin’s “excellent example of natural selection” in two types of wooded areas in England—polluted and nonpolluted. Kettlewood demonstrated light colored peppered moths survived better than darker colored moths in areas where the tree trucks were of lighter color, and conversely— darker colored moths survived better than lighter colored moths in areas where the tree trucks were of darker color.

This phenomenon became known as industrial melanism. Kettlewell announced the experiment as “the most striking evolutionary change ever actually witnessed in any organism.” Kettlewell later published an article in Scientific American in 1959 entitled “Darwin’s Missing Evidence.”

By the early 1960’s, pictures of Kettlewell’s peppered moths on tree trunks emerged as the hottest ticket in biology textbooks to demonstrate the scientific evidence for evolution through natural selection.

Kettlewood repeated the same experiment in the wooded areas surrounding Dorset while being filmed by Niko Tinbergen who won the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. In 1975, British geneticist Philip. M. Sheppard called the phenomenon “the most spectacular evolutionary change ever witnessed and recorded by man.”

The first red flag over Kettlewell’s experiment was raised in 1975 by D. R. Lees and E. R. Creed when they repeated the experiment. After performing the experiment, Lee and Creed were drawn to conclude, “Either the predation experiments and tests of conspicuousness to humans are misleading, or some factor or factors in addition to selective predation are responsible for maintaining the high melanic frequencies.”

In 1984, Finnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola, discrediting textbook pictures of moths on tree trucks, stated in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society that normally the Peppered Moth rests on “horizontal branches”… “high up in the canopies” and not on tree trunks as “studied” by Kettlewell.

In the same year, Italian biologists Giuseppe Sermonti and Paola Catastini criticized Kettlewood’s daytime releases, declaring, “the evidence Darwin lacked, Kettlewood also lacked.”

In revisiting the issue in 1999, Japanese biologist Atuhiro Sibatani likewise concluded in the European journal Rivista di Biologia that the “story of industrial melanism must be shelved at least for the time being, as a paradigm of neo-Darwinian evolution.” American biologist Theodore Sargent and colleagues in 1998 contended in Evolutionary Biology “that there is little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observations, to support this explanation at the present time.” The evidence is clear. Kettlewell had fraudulently engineered his study original study.

Commenting on Kettlewell’s moth example of natural selection at work, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, in 1998, wrote in Nature, “From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classical experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong.”

Coyne concluded that Kettlewood’s “prize horse of evolution in our stable of examples” of evolution “is in bad shape, and while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention.” Coyne painted a bigger picture: “We must stop pretending we understand the course of natural selection.”

In 2005, Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti encapsulated Kettlewell’s experiment in the book Why a Fly is not a Horse and took the stance that the “fairy tale of the peppered moth is plausible, but untrue.”

Kettlewell’s moths, along with Haeckel’s embryos, British Museum’s Piltdown man, and National Geographic’s Archaeoraptor, stands as textbook example of fraud used as evidence to promote the theory of evolution as a fact.

During his lifetime, Kettlewell was appointed Senior Research Officer at the University of Oxford in 1954, lead the 1958 Expedition to Brazil marking the centennial of Darwin’s Origin of Species, awarded the Darwin Medal (USSR) in 1959 and the Mendel Medal (Czechoslovakia) in 1965, and nominated as an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College at Oxford University. Kettlewell died of a drug overdose in 1979.

No wonder, natural selection has critics. Swedish geneticist Antonio Lima-de-Faria views “Selection [as] a political not a scientific concept. At the time of Darwin it fitted perfectly the expanding colonialism of Victorian England.”

For geneticist Scott Gilbert at Swarthmore College, “natural selection alone cannot explain how butterflies got their wings. How the turtle got its shell.”

Carl Sagan’s wife and a member of the National Academy of Science since 1983, Lynn Margulis concludes, “Natural selection occurs all the time. But natural selection is an elimination process.”

Stuart Newman, professor at the New York Medical College and Altenberg Summit participant sees that “No natural law may suffice to describe the full evolution of the biosphere, human economy, and the human culture.”

Following decades of investigation on natural selection, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini have been driven to conclude in What Darwin Got Wrong, “Darwin’s theory of natural selection is fatally flawed”. Not only is flawed, even the concept of natural selection is simply an “intensional fallacy”.

Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti has declared, “Science has taken on the wager… and lost.” Kettlewell’s peppered moths are yet another textbook example of fraud by the evolution industry in a disparate attempt to provide evidence for evolution.

While evolution in the twentieth century was considered a theory in crisis, now the theory of evolution is in crisis without evidence—the emperor without cloths.

References available upon request

While not specifically address origin of life issues in The Origin of Species, Darwin clearly wrestled with the issue. At the time, concepts of spontaneous generation, the animate arising from the inanimate, dominated the evolution movement.

The origin of spontaneous generation concepts can be traced back to the Greek philosophers from Anaximander to Aristotle—“Creatures are spontaneously generated”. Even Saint Augustine, along with his geocentric theory, discussed spontaneous generation in The City of God.

The synthesis of the organic compound urea by German chemist Friedrich Woehler in 1828 using inorganic chemical reactions further fueled the possibility of producing life from non-life, setting the stage for Darwin’s “warm little pond” speculation—the protein “ready to undergo still more complex changes”.

Spontaneous generation concepts continued into the twentieth century. Russian biochemist Aleksandr Oparin proposed that there is no fundamental difference between a living organism and lifeless matter, and that early Earth was composed of a reducing stellar atmosphere—an atmosphere with no oxygen.

British geneticist John B.S. Haldane envisioned that the early Earth pre-biotic oceans were “hot dilute soup” coining the term “Primordial soup”. The concept even gained traction in Hollywood. In the opening scenes of the 1940 Walt Disney movie “Fantasia”, the primordial Earth depiction, underscored with Igor Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring, declared “… a coldly accurate reproduction of what science thinks went on in the first few billion years of this planet’s existence.”

Riding the popular wave of possibility, in the 1950’s physical chemist Harold C Urey promoted the “Cosmochemistry” theory—life on Earth arose from stellar gases in the absence of oxygen. Stanley Miller, Urey’s graduate student, performed in the laboratory the infamous Miller-Urey experiment producing proteins in the absence of oxygen in 1953.

The absence of oxygen is a critical factor in the generation of proteins from stellar gases. The absence of oxygen produces a reducing atmosphere while the presence of oxygen produces an oxidizing atmosphere. An oxidizing atmosphere prevents the production of proteins from stellar gases dominated by methane and ammonia.

Until later in the 1950’s, little evidence was available to document the atmospheric conditions of early Earth. The Miller-Urey experiment opened a new field for geological investigation. The quest to discover the early atmospheric conditions of the Earth before the advent of life in geological formations was on.

One of the first to find a wrench in the no-oxygen theory was geologist Harrison Brown of the University of Chicago in the 1960s, noting that stellar atmosphere vanished or never existed on Earth.

By the 1970s, Philip Abelson of the Carnegie Institution gave a simple Q&A: “What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on Earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.”

Later in the 1970s, Canadian geologists Erich Dimroth and Michael Kimberly issued the following finding: “In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved sedimentary rocks.”

Belgium Biochemist, Marcel Florkin, joined Dimroth and Kimberly in 1975 noting that “the concept of a reducing primitive atmosphere has been abandoned,” and the Miller–Urey experiment is “not now considered geologically adequate.”

Even molecular biologists, Sidney Fox and Klaus Dose, joined the discussion in 1977 declaring, “The inference that Miller’s synthesis does not have a geological relevance has become increasingly widespread.”

In 1982, British geologists Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham after examining the evidence from the rocks proclaimed, “From the time of the earliest dated rocks at 3.7 billion years, Earth had an oxygenic atmosphere.”

By 1995, Jon Cohen, senior editor for Science, the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) announced, “The early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller–Urey simulation.”

With the evidence became too massive to ignore any longer, in 1998 Richard Monastersky, writing for the National Geographic finally broadcast, “Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was very different from what Miller first supposed.”

Oxygen was clearly in the early Earth picture and now is throwing a wrench into the gears of the evolution industry machine. The evolution industry is failing to answer the most basic question of life—how did life begin?

Perhaps it was intuition that drove Darwin away from speculating on the origin of life in The Origin of Species—it had more than enough unresolved problems.

With a tsunami of evidence against Urey’s theory, since the 1970s NASA has continues to fund the descendant of cosmochemistry, astrobiology, even though scientists like Jerry Fodor of the University of Arizona have noted, “Astrobiology doesn’t exist.”

The drive to support astrobiology is money. Robert Hazen, research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory and Clarence Robinson Professor of Earth, opined, “Astrobiology is growing tremendously because there is a stable source of funding. Let’s face it. Science is a social endeavor. If people can get jobs, they’re going to go into the field.”

Oxygen, a wrench in the gears of evolution theory, paints the clear picture: the evolution industry is driven by a societal philosophy, not science. Evolution is simply a philosophy.

References available upon request

Darwin envisioned man evolving into existence in the same way as animals. Since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, the hunt has been on to find all the missing “slight, successive” transitional links, especially the link from animal to man.

Java Man

In 1891, Dutch anatomist Eugene Dubois unearthed skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth on the island of Java, Indonesia claiming the bones to be an intermediate species in between humans and apes. The evidence was hotly disputed, but Dubois continued to contend that the Java man was a transitional link. Today, scientists classify the Java man as Homo erectus—not a missing transitional link to man.

Piltdown Man

In 1911, Charles Dawson unearthed fragments of a human skull and fragments of a lower jaw with two teeth a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. On November 21, 1912, The Guardian newspaper announced the discovery: “One of the most important prehistoric finds of our time has been made in Sussex”—the ancestor of man.

In 1913, the fossils were placed on display at the British Museum of Natural History as evidence evolution from ape to man. After suspicions started flying in the early 1950’s, the exhibit was quietly slipped out the back door following the discovery that the Piltdown man was simply a glued composite of an organ tan jaw and the skull of a man—not a missing transitional link to man.

Reflecting on the fraud, paleontologist Roger Lewin in 1997 lamented -

Given all the many anatomical incongruities in the Piltdown remains, which of course are glaringly obvious from the vantage of the present, it is truly astonishing that the forgery was so eagerly embraced.

Nebraska Man

In 1917, Nebraska rancher and geologist Harold Cook found a human-like tooth. The tooth became recognized as evidence of the “Ape of the Western World.” The tooth was named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.

By 1925, however, the tooth was recognized as belonging to neither to man nor ape, but to an extinct pig like species. In 1927, the journal Science retracted their identification of the fossil as that from an ape. The retraction made front-page news in The New York Times in 1928, with the title “Nebraska ape tooth proved a wild pig’s,” and was reported on page sixteen in The Times of London, with the more abstract title, “Hesperopithecus dethroned.”

Peking Man

During excavations in the early 1920’s partial human-like craniums, lower jaws, teeth, skeletal bones were discovered near Beijing (written ‘Peking’ before the adoption of the Pinyin romanization system), China.

The original study on the Peking man fossils was performed by anatomist Davidson Black and the findings were published in the journal Nature. The discovery garnered international attention and the support of the Rockefeller Foundation for continued exploration.

Over the next several years, more than forty fossil specimens, including six nearly complete skullcaps, were uncovered. While being shipped to the United States in 1941 for safety during World War II, the original fossils disappeared. Today, only the casts and descriptions remain.

While originally thought to be a missing link, the Peking man, after critical analysis, like the Java Man, is now classified as Homo erectus—not the missing transitional link to man.

Lucy

In November 1974, paleontologist Tom Gray affectionately named the series of human-like skeletons found in Ethiopia “Lucy.” The garnered immediate worldwide attention as the missing transitional link to man.

On analyzing the skeletal features, while the Lucy did walk upright, it best suited for tree-climbing. In the 1986journal publication Natural History, Stephen Gould noted that Lucy was “uniquely different from apes and humans, not as imperfect people on the way up.”

Drawing conclusions on the origins of man with limited evidence can be a tricky business. In 2001, Henry Gee, senior science writer of the leading British journal Nature, concedes that “hominid evolution—[is] as mysterious as ever.”

Ida

Even more tragic for the evolution industry, the brazenous Ida story in 2009 stoops to barbarian standards in a desparate attempt to crayon-in the enormous missing transitional link to man.

Neanderthal

The Neanderthal has long been considered the best missing transitional link to man. However, due to its larged skull size even Darwin had a problem with the Neanderthal as the missing link to man. Now genetic testing has determined that the Neanderthals are not different from modern man. As John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin noted, “They’re us. We’re them.”

After 150 years since publication of The Origin of Species, there is no evidence “that man must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth,” as suggested by Darwin.

Evolution was once a theory in crisis, now evolution is in crisis without a theory.

Of Charles Darwin’s alleged facts in The Origin of Species, the embryo drawings by Haeckel were “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor” of the theory. Darwin explains,

Professor Haeckel in his ‘Generelle Morphologie’ and in [other] works has recently brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he calls phylogeny, or the lines of descent of all organic beings. In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters.

Long after Darwin had been laid to rest in Westminster Abbey in 1882, Haeckel shocked the world in 1909 made the following confession of forgery, in a letter to the Munchener Allegemeine Zeitung, an international weekly publication for the sciences and arts –

After this compromising confession of ‘forgery’ I should be obliged to consider.… The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises, and journals would incur in the same degree – the charge of ‘forgery,’ for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised, and constructed.

On October 7, 2010, National Geographic quietly held a news conference to announce they had “entirely fabricated” ancient Greece, a culture long thought to be the intellectual basis of Western civilization.

The announcement acknowledged that the idea of a sophisticated, flourishing society existing in Greece more than two millennia ago was a complete fiction created by a team of some two dozen historians, anthropologists, and classicists who worked nonstop between 1971 and 1974 to forge “Greek” documents and artifacts.

“Honestly, we never meant for things to go this far,” said past professor Gene Haddlebury and chair of Hellenic Studies at Georgetown University. “We were young and trying to advance our careers, so we just started making things up: Homer, Aristotle, Socrates, Hippocrates, the lever and fulcrum, rhetoric, ethics, all the different kinds of columns—everything.”

According to Haddlebury, the invention of a fraudulent ancient culture came about when he and other scholars realized they had no idea what had actually happened in Europe during the 800-year period before the Christian era.

Frustrated by the gap in the record, and finding archaeologists to be “not much help at all,” they took the problem to colleagues who were then scrambling to find a way to explain the origin of astronomy, cartography, and democracy.

“One night someone made a joke about just taking all these ideas, lumping them together, and saying the Greeks had done it all 2,000 years ago,” Haddlebury said. “One thing led to another, and before you know it, we’re coming up with everything from the golden ratio to the Iliad.”

“That was a bitch to write, by the way,” he continued, referring to the epic poem believed to have laid the foundation for the Western literary tradition. “But it seemed to catch on.”

Unknowingly, around the same time, a curator at the Smithsonian Institute turned to Haddlebury to develop an exhibit of Greek history. The museum had received a sizeable donation to create an exhibit on the ancient world but “really didn’t have a whole lot to put in there.”

Haddlebury and his history colleagues immediately set to work, hastily falsifying evidence of a civilization that— complete with its own poets and philosophers, gods and heroes—would eventually become the centerpiece of schoolbooks, college educations, and the entire field of the humanities.

Emily Nguyen-Whiteman, one of the young academic historians who “pulled a month’s worth of all-nighters” working on the project, explained that the whole of ancient Greek architecture was based on buildings in Washington, D.C., including a bank across the street from the coffee shop where they met to “bat around ideas about mythology or whatever.”

“We picked Greece because we figured nobody would ever go there to check it out,” Nguyen-Whiteman said. “Have you ever seen the place? It’s a dump. It’s like an abandoned gravel pit infested with cats.”

Continuing, Nguyen-Whiteman lamented, “Inevitably, though, people started looking around for some of this ‘ancient’ stuff, and next thing I know I’m stuck in Athens all summer building a goddamn Parthenon just to cover our tracks.”

Nguyen-Whiteman acknowledged altering documents ranging from early Bibles to the writings of Thomas Jefferson to reflect a “Classical Greek” influence—a task that also included the creation, from scratch, of a language based on modern Greek that could pass as its ancient precursor.

Haddlebury and his history colleagues told reporters that some of the so-called Greek ideas were in fact borrowed from the Romans, stripped to their fundamentals, and then attributed to fictional Greek predecessors. But others they claimed as their own.

“Geometry? That was all Kevin,” said Haddlebury, referring to former graduate student Kevin Davenport. “Man, that kid was on fire in those days. They teach Davenportian geometry in high schools now, though of course they call it Euclidean.”

In a joint statement, Haddlebury and his history colleagues expressed “profound apologies” for misleading the world for almost 40 years. Amazingly, the Greek history fraud revelation continues National Geographic’s legacy of invention. In 1999, the National Geographic was forced to acknowledge the “Feathers for T. rex?” article as fraud.

National Geographic’s latest round of Greek history fraud highlights how philosophy, not science, is driving the invention of a fabricated worldview—code for fraud, a practice ubiquitous in the evolution industry.

Of his twenty-five books, Charles Darwin considered The Origin of Species his greatest lifetime achievement. Today rarely is the full title of the book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest in the Preservation of Favoured Races, is rarely ever mentioned.

The long title is actually two titles separated by the word “or” with four separate phrases. Since Preservation of Favoured Races infers racism and Survival of the Fittest was later translated to Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, today, rarely is the second half of the title ever used.

Since By Means of Natural Selection continues to be controversial, as it was during the nineteenth century, this phrase is usually disregarded, too. Today, the book is most popularly referred to as The Origin of Species, or more simply, The Origin.

Without question, the two phrases together, Survival of the Fittest in the Preservation of Favoured Races philosophically justifies militant racism and class warfare, an opportunity not missed by Karl Marx. Marx was a contemporary of Darwin, both living in England at the same time. While never meeting together, they developed a corresponding rapport.

The Origin of Species was the Harry Potter of the nineteenth century; all 1250 copies of the first release were sold on the first day, 24 November 1859. Copies of the first release were purchased by Karl Marx and his colleague, Friedrich Engels. Within a few weeks, Engels wrote to Marx -

Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.

Marx responded to Engels on December 19, 1860 -

This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.

Whether Marx had influenced Darwin, or whether the concept of “struggle” was simply circulating within the nineteenth century intellectual community is not certain. “Struggle”, however, was a key concept for both Darwin and Marx. Marx summarized the importance of “struggle” in the first line of chapter one of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848 -

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

At the time, Darwin was more popular, vastly out selling Marx—the Darwin’s of the nineteenth century were akin to the twentieth century version of the Kennedy’s. Looking for an endorsement from Darwin, Marx asked permission to dedicate Das Kapital in 1867 to Darwin. Darwin graciously replied, however -

Dear sir; I thank you for the honor that you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital and I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, but understanding more of the deep and important subject of political economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge and that this in the long run is sure to add to the happiness of Mankind. I remain, Dear Sir, Yours faithfully, Charles Darwin.

Natural selection is Charles Darwin proposed natural mechanism for the origin of new species, as the title implies—On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Natural selection was Darwin’s proposed unifying “natural law of evolution”.

What is the evidence for natural selection? Darwin explains -

In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural selection acts, I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations.

It does not take a Ph.D. to know that “imaginary illustrations” do not qualify as scientific evidence. Amazingly, natural selection was never based on any scientific evidence. In fact, natural selection was simply founded on a philosophical belief in evolution using deductive reasoning and supported by “imaginary” and speculative evidence.

Darwin clearly makes the point that natural selection was developed on speculations, not science –

I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.

What is the definition of natural selection? Darwin explains -

I do believe that natural selection will generally act very slowly, only over long periods of time…. natural selection acts slowly by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations.

With this definition of natural selection, the quest since 1859 has centered on finding the “slight, successive” transitional links between the species beyond the “imaginary illustrations”.

As evidence, Darwin proposed the Halitherium, Zeuglodon, Hipparion, and the Archaeopteryx in The Origin of Species. Halithermium and Zeuglodon are large sea mammals and the Hipparion is a horse. Zeuglodon is only mentioned once in The Origin of Species.

Darwin proposed sea mammals as transitional links, since Darwin was simply continuing the Greek philosophy that animals originated from the sea. Darwin suggests that the Halithermium may be an intermediate link because “the extinct Halitherium … makes some approach to ordinary hoofed quadrupeds.” In other words, the Halitherium eventually evolved to arise out of the water to walk on land as a horse, a Hipparion.

Greek philosopher Anaximander taught that “life evolved from moisture,” and that “man developed from fish.” The origin of the mermaid legend can be traced back to the Siren mythology of the legendary aquatic creature appearing with the head and torso of a human female and the tail of a fish. The Halitherium to Hipparion (horse) transitional link, points to the fact that natural selection was driven by a philosophy of evolution, and not by the scientific evidence.

Without question, Darwin’s most legendary transitional links are the Hipparion horse and the bird Archaeopteryx. The horse and Archaeopteryx eventually became popular examples of the missing links of evolution used in biology textbooks, even throughout the late twentieth century.

After 150 years of research since the publication of The Origin of Species however, the scientific evidence for the “slight, successive” transitional changes in the horse and Archaeopteryx have long been known to fail the elusive transitional link status.

At the International Archaeopteryx Conference in 1985, Peter Dodson concluded that the Archaeopteryx was a bird capable of flight and published his conclusion in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology:

At the end of the three days of presentations, Alan Charig, chief curator of fossil amphibians, reptiles, and birds at the British Museum, orchestrated a concerted effort to summarize the ideas for which consensus exists. The general credo runs as follows: Archaeopteryx was a bird that could fly.

In other words, the Archaeopteryx was not a transitional link between the reptile and bird—the Archaeopteryx was simply a bird. The evidence was merely speculation based on selective evidence.

The horse evolution legend follows a similar fate. In 1979, David Raup, at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, acknowledged that any evolutionary sequence is light-years more complex than originally thought -

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded…. Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.

Even Darwin was keenly aware that use of selective evidence became problematic. No big surprise, natural selection ironically became Darwin’s biggest problem. In his own words –

Natural selection… is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered.

And, 20^th century scientists agree. Conrad H Waddington, the renowned evolutionary paleontologist, spells it out -

There, you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that.”

Natural selection is the big Black Box of evolution. No one knows what it is, where it came from, or how it even works. Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti agrees with Waddington -

Natural selection could perhaps be invoked as a mechanism accounting for the survival of the species. But the claim that natural selection is creative of life… can only leave one dumbstruck.

In the 2010 book entitled What Darwin Got Wrong, even “card-carrying” atheists, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Palmarini, came to the very same conclusion –

We have both spent effort and ink… to show that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is fatally flawed.

In the end, natural selection has not a friend of Darwin, neither then or now. Speculations on selective evidence are not within the scope of science, mermaids only exist in mythology. Sensing the depth of problems with natural selection, in a letter to H. Falconer in October 1862, Darwin wrote,

I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved to be rubbish.

Today after 150 years of research, the title The Origin of Species Theory by Means of Selective Evidence would be more descriptive since Darwin’s theory was based on a philosophy of evolution using selective evidence. Evolution during the late twentieth century was a theory in crisis, now evolution is simply a philosophy without a theory.

Biological evolution continues merely as a myth, along with the mermaid legend.