If you mean by "Darwin's species diversity hypothesis" as "natural selection" then paleobiology can help explain many things. We can look on the same proceses what we observe today in wider perspective. Popular "Missing links" can give us many informations about philogenetic line of particular taxa. We can see what adaptation emerge on what enviromental pressure, how it change over time, and when it started to be issiue. Paleoscience is book with pages write by evolution we just need to open it and read :)

Here You can find new interesting papers about the species diversity in Darwin finches

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7491/abs/507178b.html

And another one :)

http://www.amnat.org/an/newpapers/MarKleindrfr.html

Kenneth, partly... I can say more about the connection of today's paleobiology and evolution of carp fishes. Biological progress is understood as improving of organisms and supraorganismal systems arising in the course of evolution and is characterized by the increasing of number of individuals in populations, taxonomic units division and their progressive dispersal. In this regard, the analysis of the rates, dynamics and trends of the evolution of carp fishes on the basis of the fossil record has considerable scientific interest. Family Cyprinidae is mainly freshwater fishes, which are common in the waters of Eurasia, Africa and North America. The world fauna has about 2420 species of 220 genera carp fish (3% from the number of chordate animals). The earliest finds of the carp remnants in the UK ("Blicca" croydonensis) are dated by the early Eocene, but they are questionable.

Carp fishes are firstly documented in continental Europe from the Middle Oligocene of Germany and France. There are many representatives of Leuciscinae and Tincinae in the Oligocene and Early Miocene of Spain, Germany and Czech Republic.

Carp fishes colonized the North America in the Middle Oligocene via the Bering Bridge. Information about the findings of the Neogene carp fishes in Africa is recently limited by the representatives of Barbinae, Labeoninae and Barilinae. Presumably, they came here from Southeast Asia in the late Early Miocene.

Cyprinidae are quite numerous in the materials from Miocene localities in Mongolia. The remnants of Leuciscus, Pseudorasbora, Ctenopharyngodon, Carassius were found in the Pliocene strata of China. A number of endemic extinct genera was found on Sumatra and Indochina Peninsula. It is considered Southeast Asia is a place of origin of the Cyprinidae.

Today, there are three alternative hypotheses for the further spread of carp fishes: 1) Cyprinidae hit through the Straits from North Africa to Europe in the Oligocene and finally colonized it in the Pliocene; 2) settlement of continental Europe by the carp fishes began in the Pliocene and caused by the movements of lithospheric plates in the Mediterranean region. However, recent findings of Barbus in the Early Miocene strata of Saudi Arabia suggest that the active phase of the colonization of southern European carp fishes began in the Oligocene; 3) carp fish widespread in the Europe was 5.6 mya, but this position hasn’t direct fossil evidence.

Morphological trends for carp fishes appear to reduce the number of lateral line scales, fin rays, simplifying cranial sculptures and ceratobranchial dentition. The evolutionary success of carp fish may be due to the habitat conservatism. A reasonable explanation of this data is presented in terms of the concept of punctuated equilibrium within stasis, supported by intraspecific diversity and selection vectors contrbalans. Fossil record is a reliable source of information about evolutionary transformation within the family Cyprinidae, which can be regarded as a model to explain the mechanisms of group diversification and distribution of species.

Dear Przemysław,

I make no doubt, the paleobiology and paleontology have comprehensive facilities to turn down or confirm Darwin's species diversity hypothesis. I would like to know concrete conclusions of different paleontologists on this subject in addition to the conclusions which I know from the literature.

Therewith, just generalizations based upon a set of observations but not upon a single result are desirable.

I would be, in particular, grateful to you for your grounded opinion on this problem.

Best regards.

Kenneth (also for attention of other members of the community),

You are a good hand at making epithets favoring the ideas you like. But, the tens of experienced paleobiologists and paleontologists, for more than a century, including the last decades, present concrete results that show discontinuity in the development of plant and animal species, and the 70-year experiments with proliferous organisms in hundreds of laboratories revealed no systematic interspecific variation. A great number of studies show that a majority of living organisms disappeared in the glaciation periods of 2400-2100 and 650-542 Mya. The species diversity can be explained only by multiple origination of living matter in different localizations, when a great number of different DNAs originate in each localization.

At present, the Life Origination Hydrate Theory is the only realistic theory that is capable of explaining the species diversity. Only this theory shows that the DNAs, amino-acids, cells and each organism as a whole can be chemically produced from only three main chemicals and only this theory shows that these transformations are thermodynamically caused. Only this theory explains the limitedness of the N-bases and DNA structure as a whole, only it shows the cause of monochirality, limitedness of the number of N-bases, etc. (see my page or Elena Kadyshevich’ s page at the ResearcGate site). We don’t to deny the possibility of interspecific variation, but they are not self-sufficient; the principle error by Darwin consisted in the idea of one-time origination of living matter in one or several items with their subsequent transformations, what is impossible.

Kenneth,

You write that "evolution is not an idea that you alone like". You are right.

But, for about 1 mln years, the people shinned up like little monkeys, lighted campfires in caves, built pyramids in Egypt, wrote at clay plates, papyruses, leathers, and paper sheets, and all they had no doubt that the Sun revolves around the Earth. This their solution was the simplest one. But all they were mistaken, because their knowledges were insufficient and because the time of adequate understanding of this phenomenon was ahead. The history knows many similar examples.

I agree with you, a majority of the authors who wrote their papers to the journal, where you were the editor-in-chief, and most of their students think like you.

But I believe that your time had passed.

I read your previous issues, and I remember well your opinion.

But other researchers will read the works written by me and Elena Kadyshevich; they will compare our proofs with the proofs presented by you and like-minded persons and will make their own conclusions.

Let them do it by themselves.

I would like only to add that the same well-known natural phenomenon is responsible, according to our concept, for not only living matter origination, but also for living matter development, mitosis, and binary fission.

The following our papers could be recommended first for familiarization with our works dedicated to these problems: V.E. Ostrovskii, E.A. Kadyshevich, Physics-Uspekhi (Advances in Physical Sciences), 50 (2007) 175–196; V.E. Ostrovskii, E.A. Kadyshevich, The Book: DNA Replication – Current Advances, (Seligmann, H., еd.); InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, Chapter 4, (2011) 75–114; V.E. Ostrovskii, E.A. Kadyshevich, Global J. Sci. Frontier Res.(A), Physics and Space Sci., 12 (2012) (6) 1–36 (all they are available in my page and in Elena Kadyshevich's page at ResearchGate site).

I wish you subsequent successes in all your initiatives.

I do not aggre with your hypotesis Victor. O-H theory is still only simulation, we can also simulate evolution on computer program. Problem with evolution is that it is a fact. If yours hypotesis is right then it cant deny evolution.

Dear All, including Kenneth,

I see a progress in understanding the problem of evolution by Dr. Kenneth. In its last issue, he, at last, acknowledges the “gaps and discontinuities in the record”; at present, he even writes that they “are well-known and expected”. This change of his position is commendable.

To save his own view on the problem of life origination, he raises a new thesis: he writes that evolution “…is favored by almost all biologists and paleobiologists, experienced or otherwise. It is not liked by creationists.” He write that allegedly “…the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution…one can obtain from the totality of the fossil record over billions of years from the simplest life forms to the most advanced. It is observable, repeatable and sequential”.

Thus, he as if mollifies his position: he writes that there are the gaps and discontinuities, but the Darwinian evolution exists. However, science is neither market nor politics and it doesn’t know compromises. I should write that his position has no grounds neither in whole no in its particular expressions. The problem of Darwinian evolution exists for almost 150 years, infinite paleontological works had already been performed, and it is time to make a conclusion. None of above-cited Dr. Kenneth’s statements has grounds.

The most experienced paleontologists reject the Darwinian idea about continuous evolution from simple organisms to mammalians. It is an absurd idea: four billions of years is an extremely short period for a similar phenomenon. Living issues originated repeatedly, in different periods, and, in each appropriate period, they had originated in different localizations, many different organisms in each localization, as it is follows from our Life Origination Hydrate Theory (see my RG page). I am forced to present several conclusions from very experienced paleontologists.

(1) “… today, many evolutionists assume that a large number of small mutations can account for macroevolution. This conclusion is not based on experimental evidence, but on the assumption that the evidence for microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution. The empirical evidence, however, is clear – neither macromutations nor micromutations can provide a significant source of new genetic information.” (Bergman, J. (2007). Creative evolution: An anti-Darwin theory won a Nobel. Acts & Facts. 36 (7)).

(2) "… Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." (Wolfgang, Smith, in: Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)

(3) “…instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species”. (Schwartz, J. H. (1999). Sudden Origins. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, p. 89).

(4) "With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C.R., 1989, in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Inst. Press, Wash., 1989, p. 105)

(5) "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge, Niles, The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p. 157).

(6) "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22).

(7) "...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, 110, 1986, p. 55).

(8) "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)

(9) "The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." (Valentine J.W., Erwin D.H., Jablonski D., Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)

(10) "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ... the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Co., N.Y., 1996, pp. 229-230).

I could multiply the list of similar conclusions, which were made by experienced paleontologists from Darwin’s time to our days. I think that everyone can see the fallacy of Kenneth’s opinion that evolution “…is favored by almost all … paleobiologists, experienced or otherwise.” I don’t know whether this fact results from the lack of knowledge of the literature or the purposive partiality.

As for biologists, the opinions of some of them are conservative because, before our works, there was no theory that could be opposed to Darwin’s one and could give a new realistic explanation for the species diversity. Many of biologists wrote from generation to generation about evolution, because no alternative theory was available. The aforesaid doesn’t mean that we exclude entirely the possibility of interspecific variations, but we state that their importance was multiply overstated by Darwin and his followers, because living matter originated in different time periods and in different localizations, multiplicity of similar but somewhat different DNAs and species originating in any one localization simultaneously.

Kenneth writes that evolution “…is not liked by creationists” (he considers this his sentence as a positive feature of Darwin and his hypothesis). However, (1) it is not important whether a researcher is creationist or not; it is important to be the objective scientist; (2) it is seen that Kenneth believes that Darwin and his hypothesis are anti-religious; meanwhile, Darwin trained to be a minister of religion, referred repeatedly in his book “On the Origin of Species” to “God” or “Creator”, and wrote that just a "living spirit" or “benevolent quasi-supernatural powers” strive for the good and fight against the bad and, thus, are responsible for the natural selection. Kenneth thinks with no grounds that, when favoring Darwin’s hypothesis, he defends the materialism against the creationism; meanwhile, it is not the case, because the Patriarchs of Rome, either Benedict XVI, or Pius XII and John Paul II, backed up Darwin’s hypothesis.

It is a usual phenomenon that the researchers who propose new views in any field of science are in the minority; this is the law of all times and all sciences, and Dr. Kenneth should know this, being a former editor-in-chief of a scientific journal as he advertises himself at the RG pages. Meanwhile, new theories that destroy old understandings of natural phenomena and develop new understandings for them are usual for sciences, because our knowledges develop not progressively but by the try-and-error way as was stated by Karl Popper.

Dear All, including Kenneth,

I would like to express an opinion on the relation between the experimental results and their information value. I do it in the context of a maxim “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong” that was presented here by one of the members of the community who attributed it to R.P. Feynman. I can neither dispute nor confirm the actual belonging this maxim to Feynman. Meanwhile, I will write my opinion on the relation between experimental results and the reality.

There is no doubt that experiments are one of the important means of clarification of the natural phenomena and detection of the connections between parameters of any one phenomenon and between different phenomena. Moreover, an opinion exists that “experiment is criterion of truth”. However, this opinion is, generally, incorrect. But what is stronger than experiments? It is logic, the so-called common sense, which may lean upon syllogizms that are born by solid (!) facts or physical and chemical laws, probability theory, exact (!) mathematic calculations, etc. If an experimental result contradicts the logic, the logic is, usually, stronger than the experimental result and the last should be rejected. Therefore, the study and systematic use of the laws of logic and the study of philosophy as the source of the laws of logic are extremely useful for naturalists.

The best example of a false experimental result observes each of us systematically. We see that the Sun revolves around the Sun; however, this result is mistaken. The mirages in deserts represent another example of false experiments which Nature presents to us. The experiments that are performed by researchers may be performed inconsistently, the experimental methods may be physically unreasonable, the procedure may be inadequate, the measuring instrument may be metrologically defective, the treatment or tractability of the results may be incorrect or ambiguous, etc.

Special situations arise, when experimental results are interpreted on the basis of any model through an approximate mathematical equation with parameters determined by the trial-and-error-method. The fact is that, several incompatible models can be used with the same precision for description of a set of experimental data. This is generally shown, for example, in the work presented in my page of the ResearchGate site (V.E. Ostrovskii, Thermochim. Acta, 01/2009, 489, 5-21; Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 01/2004; 43; 3113-3126).

Therefore, each conclusion obtained on the basis of an experimental result should be checked by logic.

It's hard to discuss with somoene who haven't know much about evolution, your questions is basics and u can find answer anywhere. What i see in this discussion is immense try to advert your hipotesis. If you are so hateful about paleonthology contribution into evolution you still can't contradict other non paleontological proofs of evolution. Your loong posts dont give any alternative hipotesis or theory but instead you still send us to your work. It's like disscusion with creationist who still send you to bible.

I really like bold hipotesis and theoris but you need to remember that evolution have been proven from more than one hundred years by all biological disciplines.

Dear All,

Each experienced researcher knows that any scientific discussion should consist of arguments and contra-arguments. The Kenneth’s issues contain emotions solely and contain neither arguments nor contra-arguments; as for his moral admonition, their edifying quality is, may be, suitable for his children's children and for remiss students only.

His issues create an impression that, if he reads some paleontological works dedicated to the nature of the species diversity, he chooses for reading only those of them which follow lead of the ideas that were in fashion a half of century ago when he was a student. For a number of his teachers who learned 80-100 years ago, the relation to the Darwinian evolution was, may be, not a solved problem; but at present, almost 150 years after publication of the Darwin’s hypothesis, the most experienced paleontologists consider this question firmly solved. Each researcher is capable of knowing the opinions of different researchers from the scientific journals governed by progressive editors-in-chief, and the oral communications are not necessary to know different opinions. Kenneth classifies researchers by the creationists and non-creationists (apparently, materialists). I think that such a classification is incorrect. In my opinion, the researchers might be classified by the objective and preconceived ones, by the ones with a living mind and with a conserved mind, by the ones who take into account the arguments of only one sort and who take into account arguments of different sorts; by the ones capable of only teaching and capable of also studying. I think that it’s a poor student who doesn’t translate the opinions of his teachers, but it’s a poor overgrown researcher who translates with no changes the opinions of his teachers (compare: "Socrates, my master, is my friend but a greater friend is truth."). Just therefore, I don’t criticize student Przemysław Puszkiewicz but criticize Kenneth. In my opinion, the principal inconsistency of Kenneth’s approach is on hand: he declares himself materialist, propagates the hypothesis of creationist Darwin by some cause, which is known to him alone, but ignores the conclusions made by a lot of other researchers (just as creationists so materialists) about this hypothesis, declares some unnamed experiments, about which nobody knows and which allegedly confirm Darwin’s hypothesis, and refuses to drill down into our completely materialistic experiments, thermodynamic calculations, literature generalizations, and logistics; and all these he makes only just because he is a priori sure that he knows the true solution of the species diversity problem, which is not nearly so obvious. Is not all this the manifestation of the syndrome of journal editor-in-chief who knows in advance that his word is the last one? (By no means, I say that this syndrome is inherent in all editors-in-chief but, unfortunately, it is characteristic for some of them.) I am ready to discuss scientific works and conclusions, I lead discussions at the ResearchGate site in the fields of science, in which I am working for a long time, and I thank the site organizers for this possibility. I expend time, which is rather limited for me, just for the sake of discussing and of checking and propagating my own ideas and conclusions. However, I believe that the discussions should be based on arguments and contra-arguments but not on emotions, declarations, and admonitions; otherwise, they transform into pastime and are sooner harmful than useful for the science development.

In one of my previous issues, I presented 10 citations from researchers of different world-outlook, which are against the Darwinian evolution, and I am ready to supply this list by some details and to continue it.

Prof. Wolfgang Smith, graduated from Cornell University with a B.A. in maths, physics, and philosophy, M.S. in theoretical physics at Purdue University, Ph. Dr. in maths. in Columbia University, etc., author of 3 books and editor of several books had wrote the following in the interview given to the Inner Explorations: “…the Darwinian theory of evolution, which (contrary to official belief) is not in fact a scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. As one molecular biologist has put it, Darwinism is ultimately "no more and no less than the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century."

Prof. Dawkins R., being a rather experienced English ethologist of materialistic orientation, also wrote: "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted …, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ... the major gaps are real, …they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Co., N.Y., 1996, pp. 229-230).

Another materialist, Prof. Eldredge Niles, a widely-known anthropologist and a member of Columbia University Museum of National History and City University of New-York, author of the Hypothesis of Punctuated Evolution, which has little to do with the Darwinian Hypothesis which proposes a continuous evolution from simplest organisms to mammalians. He, in particular, wrote: "Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record." (Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22). Other his criticism directed opposite to Darwin’s hypothesis is presented at the ResearchGate site in one of my previous issues.

In one of my previous issues, I cited anti-Darwinian papers by Prof. Jerry Bergman from Ohio University, biologist, chemist, and psychologist, Prof. Schwartz J.N. anthropologist from the University of Pittsburgh (USA), Prof. Paul C.R.C., author of an anti-Darwinian book “The natural history of fossils”, and Prof. Jablonski D. (University of Chicago).

All researchers cited above are against the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis. Does Kenneth think that all these researchers have only first-hand knowledge of the Darwinian hypothesis?

It is well known after paleontological works of the latter part of the 20th century that the living matter developed in a discontinuous manner, in discrete steps, but not continuously as Darwin thought. The simplest living matter originated, apparently, about 3 900 mln years ago, after the period of the faint Sun, the second boom in the living matter origination was about 2100 mln years ago in the period of Earth “defrosting” after its continuous glaciations, and the following, third boom (the so-called Cambrian Explosion) was about 542-525 mln years ago, after the periods of partial glaciations of the Earth; therewith, a multitude of the species had became extinct in the periods of the glaciations, and the origination and propagation of living organisms had began almost all over again. This history and the Darwinian continuous evolution are as different as chalk and cheese. Why did the explosions in the living species origination and propagation occur in the periods just after cold conditions? Nothing but our theory answer this question: living matter originated and propagated in the periods, when CH4-hydrate and, possibly, C2H6 and C3H8 hydrates were underground near the Earth surface (they are stable in the vicinities of 273 K).

I am surprised very much that I should write to Kenneth, who see himself as an expert in paleontology, about the intermittence in life propagation and repetition in life origination, which contradict principally the Darwin’s hypothesis of continuous evolution. Meanwhile, this feature is, in particular, well known to other members of the Smithsonian Institution, where Kenneth was affiliated before his normal retirement. Below, I present an opinion of a group of authors among which at least Erwin Douglas H. was a member of the Smithsonian Institution (Curator of Paleozoic Invertebrates at the National Museum of Natural History).

"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body Plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376).

It is of interest to present the opinion of a known anthropologist Paul C.R.C., author of the book “The natural history of fossils”: "With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." This citation is taken from the paper "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", which is printed by the Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, Allen K. C. and Briggs D. E. editors, in the paper titled “Evolution and the Fossil Record”, 1989, p. 105.

Does all the aforesaid not show that Kenneth, who advocates the hypothesis of Darwinian evolution, is similar to a sergeant who believes that all soldiers of his rifle company marches not in step and only he alone marches in step?

I will distress Kenneth by one more fact: we, I and Elena Kadyshevich, are acquainted personally with Prof. M.A. Fedonkin. He knows our works, and we know his works; we cite mutually our works. If Kenneth read these works, he would pay attention to this fact and, possibly, would likely abstain from his moral admonition. Apparently, this Kenneth’s admonition shows that he doesn’t read the literature on this problem, at least, for last years.

We introduced new ideas to the living matter origination problem, and we believe that appearance of new ideas is normal and desirable phenomenon in any science, if these ideas don’t contradict to the thermodynamic, common sense, and logic, bear on experimental facts and find confirmations in computer simulations and survey notes. Our Life Origination Hydrate Theory has all these features. It is published in more than ten scientific peer reviewed journals, presented at about 30 International conferences, and has a lot of good references. Each researcher is capable of making sure of this by writing our paper published in the Global Journal of the Science Frontier Research, other publications of 2013 and 2014, and also earlier ones. All they are available at my and Elena Kadyshevich pages at the ResearchGate site. The researchers interested in the original Mitosis and Replication Hydrate Theory (pioneering physicochemical theory of intra-cellular processes) could read our papers published in Thermochemica Acta (2007) and in the Book “DNA Replication – Current Advances” (2011), which are also available at our RG pages.

To be honest I don't think that prof Richard Dawkins are anti-Darwinian. I recommend to watch and read more of his works. Paleonthology isn't perfect but that what we can observe in present study. Evolution must exist before present observation it's called The principle of Uniformitarianism. Evolution is fact what we can observe today. If your hipotesis relay on "bad paleonthology" its wrong from beginning. I can also say that scientists are also human and they can be wrong for exaple N. Tesla don't belive in gravitation so I don't understand that argument.

I also can't understand in what part of thermodynamics dont aggre with evolution? this old missunderstanding has been already solved. Second law of thermodynamics don't applay to evolution! Sun continously send energy to earth so enthropy don't change.

Im looking forward for new hypothesis and theories about origin of live and it's changes but on present level of evidence I don't see any logical theory except evolution.

At long last! It isn't me who began this argy-bargy with Kenneth, and I had already wrote several times that it should be finished.

As for the readings, let others count them.