The Evolution Fraud

protein

This is a schematic drawing of cytochrome-C, a polypeptide of approximately 500 amino acid residues in length.   Its synthesis, whether very fast, or very slow, involved the precise addition of one specific amino acid after another, to the chain being constructed.  Since there are 20 different amino acids in human polypeptides, the probability of assembling this sequence in the correct order is 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20…. 500 times.  This equates to 1 chance in 10 to the 650th power.

Moreover, this calculation does not even take into account:

  1.  The probability of folding the chain in a precise manner
  2.  How L-amino acids were isolated from a racemic mixture of both D and L components (They respectively rotate plane-polarized light right, and left.)

The very hateful and militant evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, claims that any event with a probability of 1 in 10 to the 40th power is “impossible.”    One chance in 10 to the 650th power is hundreds of orders of magnitude more impossible than Dawkins’ definition.  But wait, it gets worse.  Much, much worse.

This is only one of the many hundreds of polypeptides (proteins and enzymes) in the human body.  And many of those are much larger than a 500 link sequence.

Not only that, but also the process of “selection” always cited by evolutionists as the driving force demands a preferential advantage conferred by any random mutation in order for evolution to proceed.  Therefore, for each of the 10^650 different steps in the gradual synthesis of this particular polypeptide, there had to be a selectable function, or use.  These functions have never been extensively documented by evolutionary biologists.  They simply cannot be.  Richard Dawkins’ favorite explanation for evolution and polypeptide synthesis is “A>B>C.” Sometimes he gets really sophisticated and adds “>D”.  This isn’t science.  It’s alphabeticization.

As a means of comparing a number as enormous as 10 to the 650th power, consider that the number of fundamental particles in the universe is approximately 10 to the 80th.

_________________________

This is the schematic for a NEC monitor.

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.

Cell chemistry.jpg

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 transport itself from place to place via chemical means,
  6. 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 absurd and statistically impossible syntheses is totally absurd.

_______________________________________

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

  1.  Why have there been so many evolutionary frauds perpetuated in its defense?
  2. Why do Darwinists attack the 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?
  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 is their mantra, “Give me enough time and anything can happen”?  (Statistics do not change over time, as they like to pretend.  Whether thousands of polypeptides were originally synthesized in one single continuous process, or over thousands of years, the probability of 1 amino  acid being selected out of 20 different possible alternatives does not change, 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.  At the molecular level, some designed intelligence is capable of feats humans cannot begin to duplicate.  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?
  11. Why have decades of research on animals which reproduce rapidly, such as the fruit fly, 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 does Darwin’s “tree of life” fail to show species at nodes, no matter how recent the depiction?

_____________________________________________

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, such as one by Bruce Alberts, former head of the National Academy of Sciences, showed this fraud.

 

Haeckel's drawings

___________________________________

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

Coelacanth

Fossils unchanged over eons.

 

Fossils unchanged over eons

fossils-unchanged-2

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

Darwin's tree of life

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?

Figure1_183mm

Advertisements

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

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.”

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore 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.)

“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)

“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)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

“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).

“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.”)

“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)

“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 Chan, 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)

“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

“The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.”  (Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse of the University of Paris and past-president of the French Academy of Science)

“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)

“For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”  (Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means)

“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 transitional’s, 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].)

“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)

“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)

“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”)

“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)

“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”)

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” – The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin

“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.]

“…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

“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.”

“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)

 

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 ultimate scientific superiority.

________________________

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.”

_________________________________

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 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.
___________________________________________

An intellectual journey, and a compelling one.

http://2001principle.com