The Evolution Fraud

In the Origin of Species, Darwin wrote: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

Let us now state, if not “fully,” at least many of the facts and arguments against Darwinism.  Such discussions are instantly censored and harshly criticized in virtually every biology department in America, in blatant contradiction of Darwin himself.

________________________

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die…..” – Max Planck

Never was this truer than in the subject of Darwinism.

The Insuperable Statistics of Naturalistic Polypeptide Synthesis

Titin is the largest protein in the human body. It consists of 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence.  The first naturalistic synthesis, whether stepwise or in one single, continuous process, consisted of “selecting” 1 out of 20 amino acids which make up humans, 38,138 times in succession, or 1/20 to the 38,138th power.   This is equal to 1 in 10 to the 49,618th power.   The pretense of claiming that “sections” of any protein were “assembled” overlooks the unassailable fact that any “section,” however small, had to be assembled under the same statistical constraints.  Whether one does the computations in one step or 1,000 steps, the figures are beyond dispute.  They get a great deal worse, in fact.

Only Levorotary (left-handed)  amino acids were used, not Dextrorotary (right-handed) amino acids, so 1 in 10 to the 49,618th power has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 38,138th power or 1 in 10 to the 11,480th power.  One more time for all consecutive peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, thus 1/2 to the 38,138th power.  The product of these three essential elements of original Titin synthesis is 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578th power (not counting whatever calculation is appropriate for the precise folding of the chain).

 Finally, “selection,” that magic word Darwin so popularized, demands that at each successive step, there must be some advantage conferred, otherwise the random mutation cannot prevail and multiply.  No one has ever proposed any original synthesis with breakdowns of thousands of intermediaries and each of their “selective” advantages.

Titin is only one of more than 20,000 polypeptides (proteins and enzymes) in the human body.

Pseudoscientific sophisticates claim that large proteins were “assembled” from smaller component blocks.  Sorry, that does not obviate the requisite statistics, it attempts to wave them away.  Every smaller component still was the result of arbitrary picking of the correct amino acid out of 20 different possibilities, in L form, with a peptide bond, and precise folding.

As a means of comparing a number as enormous as 20 to the 38,138th power, consider that the number of fundamental particles in the universe is approximately 10 to the 80th.

In 1943, the distinguished French mathematician Émile Borel stated that “events with a sufficiently small probability never occur” (Institute of Mathematical Statistics).

Dr. Borel chose a fairly safe number, 10 to the minus 50.

Ten to the 50th marbles1 cm in diameter would fill 923,400,000,000,000,000,000,000 spheres the size of earth.  This is 923,400 billion billion.

Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!” ― Jun-yuan Chen, paleontologist

Censoring and silencing dissent from Darwinism is unintelligent and unscientific.

“I believe that I was considered by all my masters and by my Father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in intellect.” – Charles Darwin

If Charles considered his father “the best judge of character whom I ever knew,” how heavily and prophetically those words must have fallen upon him:  “You will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family.”

Darwin’s disgrace was leading countless followers to atheism, for the Creator was no longer “needed”.

In his mediocrity, Darwin used almost infinite extrapolation on simple adaptation he observed in the Galapagos Islands.  By the same method Darwin could have extrapolated that since runners continually break old records, they will someday run a mile in two seconds, and high jump 2,000 feet.

As evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution made it intellectually satisfying for me to be an atheist.”

_________________________

This is the schematic for a NEC monitor.

This monitor performs a valuable function and is clearly designed, that is to say, it did not develop itself.

This is the schematic for a single cell.  Note the similarities of the two schematic designs.

However, unlike the NEC monitor schematic, the cell schematic:

1.  Cannot be constructed by humans in a laboratory, but only by another living cell,
2.  Can feed (provide power) to itself,
3. Can repair itself,
4. Can reproduce itself,
5. Can modify its own structure, as when muscles are developed through exercise.

To pretend that sophisticated electronics were designed by educated engineers, but far more sophisticated cells and animals made themselves, via statistically impossible, complex syntheses, is clearly absurd.

_______________________________________

The root word for science is “Scientia,” Latin for “knowledge.”  The new buzz word, “consensus,” is not science and scientific consensus has been wrong countless times over human history.  The excuse given for all these errors is *science has a self-correcting mechanism.*  So does every living organism.   All plants and animals seek food, water, habitable space, and heal themselves when injured.

________________

Truth will always be paucorem hominem*, (of few men) and must therefore quietly and modestly wait for the few whose unusual mode of thought may find it enjoyable. Life is short, but works far and lives long; let us speak the truth. – Arthur Schopenhauer

If evolution is, in the words of many biologists, “fact, fact, fact,” then :

1.  Why have over 1,240 scientists signed A Dissent From Darwinism?
2. Why do Darwinists attack the organization and/or person (Calling them a “Young earth creationist” or “fundy”) making an argument instead of the argument itself, an Ad Hominem Fallacy of logic?
3. Why are evolutionary biologists so militantly opposed to listening to science refuting evolution when science has always been about dissent?
4. Why do they insist on citing the Bible in any discussion of Darwin’s Speculation?
5. Why do Darwinists mock “the God of the gaps” while they propound “science of the gaps” without even realizing their own hypocrisy?
6. Why do they relentlessly make the Fallacy of the Argument from Authority, in conjunction with the Fallacy of the Argument Ad Populum, insisting that because so many biologists, in particular, “believe” this, it must surely be so?
7. Why do they claim, “Given enough time and anything is possible”?  (Statistics do not change over time, as they like to pretend, any more than a coin flip being 50/50 changes when the coin is flipped every second or once every thousand years.)
8.  Why then are African grey parrots one of the smartest animals on earth, while sperm whales, with the largest brains on the planet, cannot even communicate with us at the most elementary level?  (The metric cited is brain size, not relative brain size.  Please don’t try to argue that brain mass to body mass is determinative.  Evolutionary biologists have long argued that homo sapiens “evolved” from more primitive life forms primarily because our larger, smarter brains gave us a “selective advantage.” 
9.  Why are tautological excuses so often given as answers to legitimate questions? For example, I asked a biology professor how it just happened that all animals with sight have two (or more) eyes, but never one.  His reply:  “It’s better that way.”
10. How can there be countless “evolutionary dead ends” which are used to explain away the lack of selection among primitive animals, such as the coelecanth, and even bacteria?  Evolution is supposed to be a constant process!  Not so.
11. Why have decades of research on animals which reproduce rapidly, such as the fruit fly, and bacteria, but they failed to result in new, successful species?
12. Why is the argument made that you must provide an alternative theory to evolution?  If it is invalid, then it must be repudiated, irrespective of whether or not any alternative theory, timetable, and mechanisms are offered.
13.  Why do Darwinists think that silliness is supposed to be convincing when they bring up “flat earth,” which nobody believes?
14. Why do they compare Darwinism with gravity, when no physicist compares gravity with Darwinism?
15. Why does Darwin’s “tree of life” fail to show species at nodes, no matter how recent the depiction?
16. Why can’t Darwin’s proponents ever discuss the science, or lack of science, in their tautology without trying to change the subject by “thumping the Bible”?  The hopeless inadequacies of Darwinism have nothing to do with the Bible!  Darwinism must stand on its own or it fails.

_____________________________________________

Haeckel’s drawings ostensibly demonstrating “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”
They were challenged in 1868 by Ludwig Rutimeyer  in Archiv für Anthropogenie immediately after their publication.  Some biology texts published as late as 2001, for example a book by Bruce Alberts, former head of the National Academy of Sciences, showed this fraud.

Famed Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote: “It is now firmly established that ontogeny [development of the individual] does not repeat phylogeny [development of the race]”
In any case, Haeckel had a passion for promoting the recapitulation theory, which he termed “the fundamental biogenetic law.” And, as one writer has noted:
“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity’” (Bowden 1977, 128).
Haeckel was exposed by professor L. Rutimeyer of Basle University. He was charged with fraud by five professors, and ultimately convicted in a university court. During the trial, Haeckel admitted that he had altered his drawings, but sought to defend himself by saying:
“I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm. 1977. Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, p. 128)

___________________________________

Coelacanth, caught in 1974, when it was thought to have been extinct for 70 million years.

Fossils unchanged over eons.

Wollemi Pines were thought to have gone extinct In Australia before the dinosaurs, hundreds of millions of years ago.  Yet in 1994, a biologist in New South Wales discovered a small grove of them at a location kept secret for their protection.

_________________________________________

Here was Darwin’s depiction of the tree of life.  Nothing is named anywhere.

A modern tree, showing only species at the tips of very long branches.  This is the best biologists can do after 150 years?   Why haven’t they discovered and labelled all the nodes?

_______________________________

Challenges to The Evolution Fraud

Truth never lost ground by enquiry.- WILLIAM PENN, Some Fruits of Solitude

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view:  its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” – Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

“I can think of no other example in all of history  when an important scientific theory – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research.  People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“…. I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist.)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of  sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection…. I find this view antecedently unbelievable –  heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense.  The empirical evidence can be interpreted to accommodate different comprehensive theories but in this case the cost in conceptual and probabilistic contortions is prohibitive.” – Atheist professor Thomas Nagel

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”  (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.”  (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)

Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist,  relied upon calculations based on equilibrium thermodynamics:
“The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.”

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology.”  (Dr. Arthur Koestler)

“The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation.”  (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”  (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.”  (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.”  – Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

“. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

“. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.”  (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

“Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress…..The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science….I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling.”  (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”  (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”  (Dr. George Wald Evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”  (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts….These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”  (Sir Ernst Chain, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

“There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the “general theory of evolution,” and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.”  (Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)

‘”Mutations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’ . No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” –Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” – The Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

“Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.” –The father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese

“Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, ‘fully formed,’ in the Cambrian . The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla.” –Invertebrate Zoology Textbook

“It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts.” –Two leading biologists in Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

“New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.” –Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards? – Jonathan Wells

“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.”  (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)

“To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with ‘natural selection’ are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability.” – Cohen, I.L. (1984), Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, New York: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 81

“Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist.”  (Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel)

“It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but it is to be preferred over the evolutionary one.”  (Dean H. Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco State University)

“Neo-Darwinism is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.” – Stephen J. Gould, Paleontologist, Harvard University, 1980

I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”  (Sir Julian Huxley, President of the United Nation’s Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO).)

“Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.” – James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University

“Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.”  (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

“Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleontology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about, but that is heresy.”  (Dr. David Pilbeam, Professor of Anthropology at Yale University, American Scientist, vol 66, p.379, June 1978)

“If I knew of any Evolutionary transitionals, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, ‘Evolution’ ”  (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution….But there was not one thing I knew about it… So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, “Can you tell me any one thing that is true?” I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School”….over the past few years….you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”  (Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.”  (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

“I shall discuss the broad patterns of hominoid evolution, an exercise made enjoyable by the need to integrate diverse kinds of information, and use that as a vehicle to speculate about hominoid origins, an event for which there is no recognized fossil record. Hence, an opportunity to exercise some imagination.”  (Dr. David Pilbeam)

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.”  (Charles Darwin, “The origin of species by means of natural selection”)

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”  (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, “Evolution, Erratic Pace”)

“Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted.”  (Dr. T.H Morgan)

“The facts of paleontology seem to support creation and the flood rather than evolution. For instance, all the major groups of invertebrates appear “suddenly” in the first fossil ferrous strata (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations indicating that they were all created almost at the same time.”  (Professor Enoch, University of Madras)

“It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)

“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.”  (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981)

“Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence.”  (Dr. R. Kirk, “The Rediscovery of Creation,” in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.)

“It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.”  (Dr. I.L. Cohen, “Darwin Was Wrong:” A Study in Probabilities (1985)

“The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible.”  (Dr. P. Lemoine, “Introduction: De L’ Evolution?” Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937)

“Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.”  (Dr. Steven Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].)

“I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.”  (Dr. Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London (1966) [an ichthyologist (expert on fish) in a 1988 address before a meeting of the Linnean Society in London])

“The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…”  (Stephen Hawking, considered the best known scientist since Albert Einstein, Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997)

“Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.
The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” — Fred Hoyle, atheist

“Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” – Fred Hoyle, atheist

“The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.” – Fred Hoyle

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate … . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect … higher intelligences … even to the limit of God … such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident.” – Fred Hoyle

“A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.” – Fred Hoyle

“It isn’t the Universe that’s following our logic, it’s we that are constructed in accordance with the logic of the Universe. And that gives what I might call a definition of intelligent life: something that reflects the basic structure of the Universe.” – Fred Hoyle

“Why then is not every Geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”  (Charles Darwin)

“The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.”  (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July, “Life and Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, 316”)

“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.”  (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.” – Charles Darwin letter to William Graham, July 3, 1881

Darwin the racist:  “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”  (Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, Chap. vi)

Darwin the sexist:  “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by mans attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than the woman. Whether deep thought, reason, or imagination or merely the use of the senses and hands…..We may also infer…..The average mental power in man must be above that of woman.”  (Charles Darwin, “The descent of Man, pg. 566”)

Darwin the fascist:  “The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail.” – Charles Darwin to Wilhelm Preyer, 1868  [And indeed social Darwinism did prevail as Hitler declared Aryans to be superior to all other races.   This was the pretense of science, which continues to this day as atheists claim intellectual superiority.  It provided German intellectuals with the biological justification for world domination.]

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
[Darwin’s letter to William Graham 3 July, 1881]”​

“…the war of annihilation… is a natural law, without which… the organic world could not continue to exist at all.” – German zoologist Gustav Jaeger, 1870

“Just as in nature the struggle for existence is the moving principle of evolution… so also in world history the destruction of weaker nations through the stronger is a postulate of progress.” – German ethnologist Friedrich Hellwald, 1875

Without Darwinism, no Hitler:  “According to Darwin’s theory wars have always been of the greatest importance for the general progress of the human species… the physically weaker, the less intelligent, the morally lower… must give place to the stronger.” – German Heinrich Ziegler, 1893

Herero people of Namibia were victims of social Darwinism in the early 20th Century..  By 1908, 80% of Herero people had been eliminated from what was then German Southwest Africa, the first genocide of the century.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

Germany and the Next War by General Friedrich von Van Hardy was a best seller in 1912.  He called war “a biological necessity.”

Hitler the Darwinist:  “The law of selection exists in the world, and the stronger and healthier has received from nature the right to live….Woe to anyone who is weak, who does not stand his ground!  He may not expect help from anyone.” – Adolf Hitler

“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man…..it is simply incredible to think that…..he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.”  (Thomas Huxley, 1871, Lay Sermons, addresses and reviews)

“The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and the Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters, such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the 11 year old youth of the species homo-sapiens.”  (Dr. H.F. Osborn, Director of the Museum of National History)

“Recapitulation provided a convenient focus for the persuasive racism of white scientists; they looked to the activities of their own children for comparison with normal adult behavior in lower races.” (Dr. Stephen J Gould, “Dr. Downs Syndrome” natural history, 1980)

“Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches — like the National Museum of Natural History.” – David Klinghoffer, (The Branding of a Heretic, Wall Street Journal, 2005)

Even a small change in the DNA can cause large detrimental effects to the overall development and health of an organism.

But are there such things as beneficial mutations? In short, no, but let me explain. While I have yet to see evidence of a truly beneficial mutation, I have seen evidence of mutations with beneficial outcomes in restricted environments. Mutations are context dependent, meaning their environment determines whether the outcome of the mutation is beneficial. One well-known example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In an environment where antibiotics are present, mutations in the bacterial DNA that alter the target of the antibiotic allow the bacteria to survive (the bacteria are faced with a “live or die” situation). However, these same mutations come at the cost of altering a protein or system that is important for the normal functioning of the bacteria (such as nutrient acquisition). If the antibiotics are removed, typically the antibiotic resistant bacteria do not fare as well as the normal (or wild-type) bacteria whose proteins and systems are not affected by mutations (see also Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?). There are numerous other examples as well. Thus, the benefit of any given mutation is not an independent quality, but rather a dependent quality based on the environment. – Dr. George Purdom

Further reading:  http://arn.org/quotes

The Logical Fallacy of the Argument From Authority

“The speaker, or author, is an authority on the subject, and therefore he must be right” is a fallacy of logic.

Humans have always sought answers to questions they have created out of the fertility of the human mind.  Lord Kelvin, then president of the Royal Society, the most prestigious scientific organization on earth, authoritatively pronounced in 1895: “Heavier than air flight by man is impossible.” He was proven wrong by two bicycle mechanics just eight years later.  They engineered their airplane so well that their propeller was within 4% of optimum.

 

“If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance.” – Wilbur Wright

 

So much for the argument from authority, always asserted by Darwinists claiming  the mantle of intellectualism and scientific superiority.

_________________________________________________

The Semmelweis reflex or “Semmelweis effect” is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.^[1]

The term derives from the name of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician who discovered in 1847 that childbed fever mortality rates fell ten-fold when doctors disinfected their hands with a chlorine solution before moving from one patient to another, or, most particularly, after an autopsy. (At one of the two maternity wards at the university hospital where Semmelweis worked, physicians performed autopsies on every deceased patient.) Semmelweis’s procedure saved many lives by stopping the ongoing contamination of patients (mostly pregnant women) with what he termed “cadaverous particles”, twenty years before germ theory was discovered.^[2] Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, his fellow doctors rejected his hand-washing suggestions, often for non-medical reasons. For instance, some doctors refused to believe that a gentleman’s hands could transmit disease.^[3]

In the preface to the fiftieth anniversary edition of his book The Myth of Mental Illness, Thomas Szasz says that Semmelweis’s biography impressed upon him at a young age, a “deep sense of the invincible social power of false truths.”^[5]

In 1983, Barry Marshall and John Warren presented a paper to the Australian Gastroenterological Society claiming that stomach ulcers are caused by infection of Helicobacter pylori. They never finished their presentation because they were laughed off the stage.  They were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005 for their discovery.          It took twenty-two years. 

_____________________________________________

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die…..” – Max Planck

“Men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.” — Goethe, from Conversations of Goethe with Eckermann and Soret

“I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the witch trials in Salem the judges were educated at Harvard. This was supposedly 100 percent science. The one or two people who said there were no witches were immediately hung. Not much has changed.”  – Princeton Physics Professor William Happer, 2017

___________________________________________

Dissent From Darwin (Approximately 1,000)

After listening to Richard Dawkins pronounce “evilooshin,” I believe he got it right.  It is evil.  It starts many down the road to atheism which has killed scores of millions and destroyed even more lives around the world.

Dawkins passionately argues that he pursues “truth” even as he tells one lie after another.  But let’s examine a hypothetical.

Suppose Belief A confers on adherents improved health and happiness. They have less clinical depression, fewer suicides, more marriages, and give more to friends, family and their community.  Conversely Belief B does precisely the opposite.

Which Belief is it logical and reasonable for you to choose?

The religious have better mental health into adulthood.

The abstract for the journal article Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members published in the Journal of Religion and Health indicates: “On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference.”^[2]

Global News reported:

“

Children who are raised with religious or spiritual beliefs tend to have better mental health into their adulthood, a new study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found. According to the study’s findings, people who attended weekly religious services or prayed or meditated daily in their childhood reported greater life satisfaction in their 20s. People who grew up in a religious household also reported fewer symptoms of depression and lower rates of post-traumatic stress disorder.[3]

“Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns” in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005). In examining various indicators of societal health, Zuckerman concludes about suicide:

“Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization‘s report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.”^[3]

Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks documents that Believers give more than non-believers.  This is irrefutable statistical science.  That will not stop Dawkins and his fellow atheists from trying to refute it.

________________________

“Self-correcting Mechanism” Rubbish

No one can point out the countless errors and frauds perpetrated throughout history in the name of “science” without Darwinists instantly retorting, as if it were profound, “But science has a self-correcting mechanism!”   So do plants.  Turn a potted plant sideways and it turns upward.  Does that make plants scientists? Answer:  No.  All animals and humans have a “self-correcting mechanism.”  We react to stimuli according to our needs. It’s called “Trial and error.”

_______________________________

A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:

“The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them.”—*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.

A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its “fitness” and “adaptation” theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.

For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the “random selection,” which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only “design” would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.

*C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!

“To suppose that the evolution of the wonderfully adapted biological mechanisms has depended only on a selection out of a haphazard set of variations, each produced by blind chance, is like suggesting that if we went on throwing bricks together into heaps, we should eventually be able to choose ourselves the most desirable house.”- C.H. Waddington

C. H. Waddington

The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.

It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.

For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (₁₀¹²) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

________________________

Professor David Berlinski exposes the many failures of Darwinism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qx0doX8eXE

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.

Atheism is an inseparable element of the materialist view of life, is a necessary condition for the theoretical education of the revolutionist.

Darwinism is a forerunner, a preparation for Marxism.  – Leon Trotsky, Soviet revolutionary

The logical deductions of Darwinism have been catastrophic for society. It clearly helped to give rise to Marxism and Nazism. Marx saw the “struggle” as among classes, Hitler conceived of the struggle as among the races. We know for certain Marx had read Darwin’s Origin: “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views.”

_________________________________

Biochemist James Tour explains the pervasively fraudulent nature of Darwinian evolution.

Questioning science IS science, contrary to the angry insistence of Darwinists that the archaic tautology is outdated and unscientific.

Impossible Step-by-Step Evolution

Both the plant and animal kingdoms are replete with examples of behavior, processes, and biological systems that could not have possibly “evolved” by any conceivable, gradual method, as demanded by Darwin’s tautology.

How did arctic terns (Sterna paradisaea) “gradually” extend their annual migration from Alaska to the Antarctic, a combined 24,000 miles?  How does “instinct” confer this knowledge to terms when we humans get lost inside a city?

How did amur falcons (Falco amurensis) gradually learn that they could migrate from Siberia and stop for two weeks in Nagaland, India to double their weight eating newborn, winged termites, before flying across the Indian and Pacific Oceans to South Africa?  How could they possibly know when the termites would hatch and be available in the millions for just two weeks?  How does “instinct” confer this knowledge to the newborn falcons?

Sea ducks, shearwaters, sandpipers and pelicans are among the birds who utilize ground effect to minimize drag and maximize lift while flying.  They fly within one wingspan of the water’s surface to conserve energy.   It is a phenomenon well known to trained pilots, but birds?  With very small brains?

A scientific dissent from Darwinism, signed by over 1,000 PhD scientists

__________________________

Richard B. Goldschmidt is a German-born U.S. zoologist and geneticist:

The evolution of the animal and plant worlds is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution. 328

Chester Arthur Arnold is Professor Emeritus of Botany in The University of Michigan:

As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present. 329

It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. 330

Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy

[W]e have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present. 331

Not only are plant evolutionists at a loss to explain the seemingly abrupt rise of the flowering plants to a place of dominance, but their origin is likewise a mystery. 332

Dr. Edred Corner is Professor of Botany at Cambridge University:

I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. 333

Edmund J. Ambrose, is Professor Emeritus at the University of London and head of the department of Cell Biology at the Chester Beatty Research Institute University of London:

At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately. . . .334

From Science News:

Both blue-green algae and bacteria fossils dating back 3.4 billion years have been found in rocks from South Africa. Even more intriguing, the pleurocapsalean algae turned out to be almost identical to modern pleurocapsalean algae at the family and possibly at the generic level. 335

Prof. Ali Demirsoy:

Photosynthesis is a rather complicated event, and it seems impossible for it to emerge in an organelle inside a cell, because it is impossible for all the stages to have come about at once. And it is meaningless for them to have emerged separately. 336

1 This 180-million-year-old plant, dating back to the Jurassic Period, has a structure identical to that of similar plants existing today.

2 This 300-million-year-old Carboniferous Period horsetail is identical to similar specimens living today.

3 This 140-million-year-old fossil belonging to the species Archaefructus is the oldest known angiosperm (flowered plant). It is no different to similar plants living today and, its flowers and fruit possess a flawless structure.

Hoimar Von Ditfurth:

No cell possesses the means of “learning” a biological process in the literal sense of the word. A cell is not in a position to perform a function such as respiration or photosynthesis during birth, and it is impossible for it to come by the ability to enable this process, to overcome this during the course of its later life. 337

Daniel Axelrod is Professor of Geology and Botany at the University of California:

The ancestral group that gave rise to angiosperms has not yet been identified in the fossil record, and no living angiosperm points to such an ancestral alliance. 338

1. F. Hughes is an author on Paleobiology and Paleobotany:

With few exceptions of detail, however, the failure to find a satisfactory explanation has persisted, and many botanists have concluded that the problem is not capable of solution, by use of fossil evidence. 339

328 Richard Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 409, January 1952, p. 84.
329 Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany, New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1947, p. 7.
330 Ibid.
331 Ibid., p. 334.
332 Ibid.
333 Dr. Eldred Corner, Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97.
334 Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164.
335 “Ancient Alga Fossil Most Complex Yet,” Science News, Vol. 108, September 20 1975, p. 181.
336 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim [“Inheritance and Evolution”], p. 8.
337 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 2 [“The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 2”], pp. 60-61.
338 Daniel Axelrod, “The Evolution of Flowering Plants,” in The Evolution Life, 1959, pp. 264-274.
339 N. F. Hughes, Paleology of Angiosperm Origins: Problems of Mesozoic Seed-Plant Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, , 1976, pp. 1-2.

____________________

On another pseudoscientific note, will someone kindly explain to me how:

 

1.  All the dead vegetation and animal life did not decompose from bacterial and fungal activities, and

2.  Continued to accumulate by the gigaton, all around the world, with NO DECOMPOSITION, mind you, and

3.  Was compressed by thousands of feet of rock and water, and

4.  Got squeezed into anthracite or bituminous coal, or crude oil, or natural gas, depending on what circumstances, please, and

5.  Just HAPPENED to be perfectly contained in ways that modern gas stations can’t duplicate, because they’re always leaking, and

6.  This happened in Canada, the U.S., Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Alaska, under oceans  and lakes.

WHERE is this so-called fossilization process taking place today?  If it is not, why not?  Please explain.

 

I don’t buy it.  Sorry.

 

Titin, one of Jupiter’s moons, has been found to be covered with far more fossil fuel than earth has.  Any plants or dinosaurs that grew there?  Ya think?

Swedish scientists have shown that fossil fuels are currently being produced miles below the surface of earth.

___________________________________________

 

 

Stalin and Hitler loved Darwin’s book.  It gave atheists a new argument to justify their belief in nihilism.  Everything made itself, from nothing, thank you very much Charles Darwin, racist.  After Darwin told the world that blacks were destined for imminent extinction,  Hitler told his followers that they were the favored race.  So did Japanese leaders as both slaughtered millions of innocent  civilians they considered inferior to them, Jews in Europe and Chinese, Filipinos and Koreans in Asia.  Thousands of Korean women were held in sexual slavery by Japanese soldiers. Darwin’s evolution in action.

 

___________________________

“To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler. Hitler tried to speed up evolution, to help it along, and millions suffered and died in unspeakable ways because of it.” — D. James Kennedy

“Communistic evolution, according to the Senate committee that examined it, is responsible for 135 million deaths in peacetime. There’s no religion that has a tiny fraction of that many deaths on its conscience. There are scientists who will admit that there’s not one iota of scientific evidence to support it.” — D. James Kennedy

__________________________________

 

An intellectual journey, and a compelling one.

http://2001principle.com

A lesson from Prager University

_________________________

Wordle

The far left-leaning New York Times publishes a daily word game at http://Wordle-game.com

Of the approximately 171,000 five-letter English words in the Oxford twenty-volume dictionary, not counting proper nouns, almost anyone can deduce Wordle’s word of the day in only six guesses, usually less. This is only possible due to the creative process of the human mind. The Darwinian mechanism offers nothing of the sort. If a mutation is wrong, the organism is not notified how to fix it. The organism may die, and with it, any hope of change. Humans can deduce the secret word in only two or three guesses.

(My dear friend and daily tennis opponent, Richard, texted me back the comment in blue after I sent him the screen shot of a solution on the second try. He is a retired teacher.)

The first lesson is that Darwinian trial and error could never ever solve a single Wordle because mutations are strictly random. A random choice of five-letter words causes the Wordle software to shake the screen, telling you “NO, that isn’t even a word.” The random choice of five letters, some of which may be duplicated in one word is larger than 26 x 26 x 25 x 24 x 23, or 9,328,800 possibilities. However, you only get six tries.

May 17, 2022

May 18, 2022

Proof of Volume of 10 to the 50th Marbles One cm in Diameter

There are 100 marbles per meter, and 100 times 1,000 per kilometer.

Therefore 10⁵ marbles cubed equals 10¹⁵ marbles per cubic kilometer.

The volume of earth is about 1.083 x 10¹² cubic kilometers.  

10¹⁵ marbles/cubic km x 1.083 x 10¹² cubic kilometers/earth =1.083 x 10²⁷ marbles to fill earth sized sphere.

10⁵⁰ marbles / 1.083 x 10²⁷ marbles/earth-size sphere = 9.234 x 10²³ earth-size spheres full of marbles, which is to say 923,400,000,000,000,000,000,000 (923,400 billion billion) earth-size spheres full to search and find the unique marble on your first and only try.  Personally, I would call it impossible to find that unique marble in just one earth-sized sphere full of them.

____________________________

 ¹ https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability

² https://www.universetoday.com/44534/plutos-distance-from-the-sun/ 

³   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radius