While there may be adequate evidence for the evolution of other species, there is none for man.
No "facts".
Jean Seignalet was wise when he based his findings on science rather than faith.
Kouchakoff did the same.
Result is that they are commonly ignored so that otherwise intelligent people can continue the fruitless babble about hypothetical evolution. Looks like an addiction, and we need a psychologist to explain it.
Your position is quite original, William, in that you seem to acknowledge the phenomenon of evolution for plants and as well as animals except man. Why do you think man is an exception ?
I can hardly believe that you’re right in this respect mainly because biology and the biosphere exhibit so striking a unity All «species »are made of the same stuff or biomolecules : proteins, enzymes, genes etc are quite similar and often even exactly the same when compared in species as different as man, chimp, wolf or deer Genetically these animals mainly differ in the amount of non-coding DNA rather than genes. These species « function » quite similarly and the basic biochemistry is quite the same, all get for instance ATP energy units in exactly the same biochemical way from fats and/ or carbohydrates. This remarkable unity can be simply explained by the existence of a common ancestor i.e. by phylogeny and evolution.
So it is much more likely that either all species do evolve or none.
I do think there is actually sufficient direct and indirect evidence in favor of evolution as a fact, in spite of the « missing links » from paleonthology. As well as for the original darwinian ordering principle of natural selection, though the latter certainly cannot explain by itself alone evolution and order in the biosphere . More general self-organization must be invoked too.
Yet I certainly agree with you that the usual neodarwinian synthesis theory of evolution is incorrect, but not because of Darwin’s principle but due to the fact that the central dogma of molecular biology or genetic determinism is basically wrong. This indeed led to much « fruitless babble » as you put it and unfortunately to the ridiculous genetic tinkering of so many people who do not know what they are doing.
As you do i also think that we do not necessarily have to invoke evolution in order to explain or understand why raw paleo like diets are far superior to neolithic ones. Cooked grains or legumes are generally quite toxic and it is not unlikely that multicellular organisms simply cannot ever adapt to such foods. Bacteria can.
The work of Seignalet indeed shows experimentally that his paleo diet works and this is the important point not theory. But note that he « believed » in evolution of man.
