Excerpt: “Without checks and balances from dissenting voices, defenders of the consensus can become overzealous and promote false information.”
My comment: Does anyone else not understand what this means?
“We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments. Thus, currently, the most plausible hypothesis is that we are observing a universal, intrinsic trend that emerged before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms.” — Jordan et al., (2005)
I could be wrong, but I think that the evolutionary ‘consensus’ may have been based only on the pseudoscientific nonsense of population genetics. Population geneticists observed differences in organisms and made up stories about how those differences evolved. How can any consensus of serious scientists defend story-telling in the absence of fact checking?
“The critical prediction made by Haldane is that, even with a substantial selection advantage, the probability of extinction declines with the number of individuals carrying the invading beneficial allele. There are no explicit experimental tests of this prediction.” An experimental test on the probability of extinction of new genetic variants