Jean Staune present the work of Anne Dambricourt without any quotations. But I’ll stop here as he is quite triumphal about. I discovered the work of Dr Dambricourt recently. And I don’t know a lot about it. But, what she claims to be impossible to explain from a darwinists point of view, is quite easy to explain in fact. During a tele-visual simulacrum of debate two colleagues, and darwinists, failed to focus on this fact. OK, for one or the other reason, and this isn’t the point, Dr Dambricourt failed to explain her findings from a darwinist’s point of view. After all, she isn’t a molecular biologist and some subtleties she may not even know about (despite the fact that there was a lot of buzz about them, but she travels a lot). I’ll postpone my comments on her work, but some french speaking fellows already have a hint about the way I’ll treat the subject 😉
Lets’ focus on the way Jean Staune conclude
This process appears equipped with its own logic that does not seem to be disturbed by the change of the environment. Such a theory contradicts Darwinism on three different fronts: the idea that evolution is unpredictable, that it is directed mainly by the changes of the environment which create a natural selection and that it is gradual.
Well, some processes appears equipped with their own logics, but a scientist would like to speak rather of facts and not appearances, isn’t it? The internal logics of the process aren’t developed here. We lack the « why » once more time, and this isn’t Goodwin talking. But the conclusions are given and presented as if supported by a theory (one would think a scientific one as we talk about science here) and not a speculation! And the conclusions would be that the evolution is predictable, that evolution is directed by something else than mutations and natural selection and that evolution isn’t gradual. Would be, if the hypothesis is proven correct. But Jean Staune isn’t in a conditional mode, but on an triumphal affirmative one.
Let’s see on what Jean Staune build his argument:
 The discoveries of Anne Dambricourt on the cranio-facial contraction show that the bipediality is due to a rotation of the neural tube.  And this rotation constitutes an internal process of embryonic origin which develops, while accelerating from one species to another during 60 million years.
There are two sentences. The first one talk about discoveries, facts, fossils descriptions, measures, concerning « the rotation of the neural tube » and the « bipediality » and the interpretation that they are linked. For simplicity’s sake let’s assume that this hypothesis is correct and the two phenotypic elements are interconnected (which is quite probable, I’m not saying « due »). Nothing supports the next sentence, number . The conclusion that this constitutes an internal process of embryonic origin comes out of thin air. Come on, there is no one aware of any quite darwinian process of cumulative mutations with phenotypic effects accelerating over time (time-span larger than a generation) and individuals?