See the video, then see the entirety of this reviewer’s comments by clicking on the link in the text below:
Excerpt: This is talk that can only come from someone who has not the slightest notion of science, scientists, the history of science. Her claim, longstanding but here made probably more explicit than she has before, that academia works by diktat and edicts, or even that it could, is beyond nonsensical.
My comment: It is beyond nonsensical that academia could work around the newly reported fact that no experimental evidence has ever suggested that mutations are fixed in the DNA of the organized genome of any species from microbes to man. What then can be said about mutation-driven evolution? Mutations that aren’t fixed in the genome cannot drive anything.
The idea of mutation-driven evolution has clearly just become the “hypothesis free” science touted by academics and condemned by Morgan in her talk. What’s worst is that no one else noticed the mutations hypothesis had never been experimentally tested.
Can the concept of hypothesis free science be addressed by anyone who has not the slightest notion of science, scientists, the history of science? Indeed, this reviewer has just done that. The history of science in the context of the review is a history that includes no experimental evidence that would support mutations theory, yet mutations theory is what academia has offered everyone as a “work around” of the fact that adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.
The history of science seems therefore to include academics who, like this reviewer, have been living in denial of at least two biological facts:
1) adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent;
2) adaptive evolution is pheromone-controlled.