Comments on: Toad “Fraud” May Have Been Ahead of His Time

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:44:36 +0000

It seems to me that Kammerer’s experiment caused a de-evolution in the midwife toad and not an evolution.
———————————————
A new study showed that we can not “de-evolve”, that once these changes occur to the cells, they’re almost impossible to reverse. New changes may occur if the conditions were changed, but you can not actually go backward.

By: Dave Johnson

Dave Johnson — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:52:21 +0000

It seems to me that Kammerer’s experiment caused a de-evolution in the midwife toad and not an evolution.

By: Paul Kammerer Vindicated in Smithsonian « OBRL-News Blog

Paul Kammerer Vindicated in Smithsonian « OBRL-News Blog — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:44:00 +0000

[...] Bjorn Nordenstrom,and other radical naturalists. Hello to them, goodbye to Watson and Crick. J.D. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2009/09/03/toad-fraud-may-have-been-ahead-of-his-time/ September 3, 2009 Toad “Fraud” May Have Been Ahead of His Time Before Charles Darwin, [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:19:56 +0000

The writer Arthur Koestler wrote an excellent but nearly-forgotten book on this subject years ago — “The Case of the Midwife Toad” — which gathers evidence that it was possibly one of Kammerer’s admiring students who injected his specimin, misguided that it would help reinforce his already abundant evidence on this subject. He had plenty of other evidence in his own book “Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics. Today there is indeed all kinds of laboratory evidence that the genes and DNA are not perpetuated in splendid isolation within their protective wrappers of the cell nucleus, but that they jump around, copy from messenger RNA, and otherwise react to environmental changes with patterned development. It gets to the point where the older strictly Darwinian natural selection, with genetic changes only by random mutations triggered by unpredictable events like cosmic rays and such, has been largely abandoned except in textbook definitions, with students typically “rubbing out” any violations of Mendel’s Laws in their classroom fruit-fly experiments. In short, it has become a catechism.
Kammerer’s book, and that of Koestler, should be required reading for biology students, along with all the other heretics: Wilhelm Reich, Louis Kervran, Robert O. Becker, Fritz Popp, Rupert Sheldrake, Frank Brown, Harold Burr, Bjorn Nordenstrom,and other radical naturalists. Oh, but of course I forgot, those books have been shoved into the “quackery” section of the libraries, from whence so many other notables in the history of science have only more recently been rehabilitated.

By: Sarah Zielinski

Sarah Zielinski — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:06:13 +0000

The paper appears in the Journal of Experimental Zoology, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122581597/abstract

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:36:44 +0000

Where does this paper appear? How can I get more info?

By: Kirby Zeman

Kirby Zeman — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:30:35 +0000

The experiments performed by Kammerer were never repeated (I assume not done, rather than not replicated), yet the issue is still being discussed, with much speculation about a lot of possibilities. I would suggest the talk stop and the experiments begin.

By: Charles F.

Charles F. — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:09:06 +0000

When is this going to end? First, male breastfeeding .. now this!