For about 3-4 years now, I have been arguing that coevolution is a big problem for evolution theory, but stupid ignoramuses like Kevin Vicklund have been pooh-poohing that coevolution is no problem at all for evolution theory. I have now found some scientific papers that back up my position. One paper's abstract says
, "Interspecific mutualisms are widespread, but how they evolve is not clear," and the body of the same paper says, "Mutually beneficial interactions between members of different species play a fundamental role in all ecosystems . . . , but their evolution has challenged theoreticians for decades. " The abstract of another scientific paper says
, "Cooperation in organisms, whether bacteria or primates, has been a difficulty for evolutionary theory since Darwin." Yet another paper says
, "Mutualisms are of fundamental importance in all ecosystems but their very existence poses a series of challenging evolutionary questions." And I have pointed out
some of coevolution's "challenging evolutionary questions" that these papers do not even address.
There have been other examples of where I am considered a crackpot for saying the same things that the "experts" say. For example, Edwin Black, author of the book "IBM and the Holocaust," also said that Jew identification was a big problem for the Nazis. And my contention that my lawsuit against California's unconstitutional smog impact fee belonged in federal court despite states' normal immunity to federal lawsuits against state taxes was vindicated when an expert testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US Environmental Protection Agency! I argued that California lost its immunity because the state had "left the sphere that is exclusively its own" (Parden v. Terminal Railway of the Alabama State Docks Dept.
) by basing the fee entirely on the state's special status under federal auto emissions laws and regulations.
Labels: Non-ID criticisms of evolution (new #1)