Peer-Reviewed Journals

Please report broken hyperlinks using the Reply option at the bottom of each page.

… [neo-Darwinism] can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical.  Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.

– David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber (2012), The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis, Biological Theory, Volume 6, Number 1 (2011), 89-102.

[ASND reminds readers that yes, Biological Theory is a peer-reviewed biology research journal.   Also ,… the paper offers the concession that the modern synthesis has never provided an account of ‘how major forms of life evolved.‘”]


This numerical exercise…is tantamount to a proof that the cell [that is, any cell — including the very first cell] does not [i.e. cannot] organize by random collisions of its interacting constituents…  The spontaneous origination of a de novo cell has yet to be observed; all extant cells are generated by the division of pre-existing cells that provide the necessary template for perpetuation of the interactome.

[Yes, the authors of that journal article are evolutionists.]


Peer-Reviewed Paper Argues for Intelligent Design


… we both claim to be out-right, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists.  We therefore seek thoroughly naturalistic explanations of the facts of evolution, although we expect that they will turn out to be quite complex, as scientific explanations often are.


We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so.  Not, anyhow, in public.  To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal it is to bring Science into disrepute.  Well, we don’t agree.  We think the way to discomfort the Forces of Darkness is to follow the arguments wherever they may lead, spreading such light as one can in the course of doing so.  What makes the Forces of Darkness dark is that they aren’t willing to do that. What makes science scientific is that it is.”


We’ll argue presently that, quite aside from the problems it has accommodating the empirical findings, the theory of natural selection is internally flawed; it’s not just that the data are equivocal, it’s that there’s a crack in the foundations.

— Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong, p.  xiii, xx


It is dangerous to raise attention to the fact that there is no satisfying explanation for macroevolution. One easily becomes a target of orthodox evolutionary biology and a false friend of proponents of non-scientific concepts.

— Günter Theißen, The Proper Place of Hopeful Monsters in Evolutionary Biology. Theory in Biosciences, Vol. 124: 349-369 (2006).


The enduring debates with creationists have also undoubtedly tended to discourage admission that major conceptual issues about evolution remain unresolved.

— John Dupré, The Conditions for Existence, American Scientist


Human [evolutionary] prehistory has descended into a state of chaos which can only be described as farcical…  A report by Ann Gibbons (‘Turning back the clock: slowing the pace of prehistory.’ Science 338:189-191) exposes the massive uncertainty than now reigns in the field of physical anthropology…


University of Maryland biology researcher… takes a non-Darwinian view of the origin of much biological complexity.


When (i) leading evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne are saying epigenetic characters are not usually inherited past one or two generations and so are not ‘going to change our concept of evolution,’ while (ii) research papers are concluding that epigenetic changes, coordinated with genetic changes, ‘could play a role in the evolution of the primate brain,’ then you know something is wrong.  Evolutionists are having to rewrite their story at an ever increasing rate to try to adjust to the data, and it isn’t making sense.


Wilf and Ewens argue in a recent paper that there is plenty of time for evolution to occur…  This approach does not accurately reflect biological evolution, however… their model [is] radically different from a real biological search through fitness space.  Wilf and Ewens also make unrealistic biological assumptions…  By doing so, they ignore the enormous sequence complexity of actual genetic loci (typically hundreds or thousands of nucleotides long), and vastly oversimplify the search for functional variants.  In similar fashion, they assume that each evolutionary ‘advance’ requires a change to just one locus, despite the clear evidence that most biological functions are the product of multiple gene products working together.


Peer-Reviewed Science: There Isn’t “Plenty of Time for Evolution”



Want to Leave a Reply?

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s