If habit is the unconscious explanation of the world, the reasons of familiarity may as well be among the trees, as a cat or lost golf ball among the animals, or in society. Whereas at times, at any street
corner or in the woods, the feeling of absurdity can surprise any man, almost striking him in the face. Suddenly too, it may seem, and from what is false anything follows. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet.
the trees there is treeness, of course, and among the absurd absurdity, yet the madness of liberalism is unending. So much that even where the most jaded have seen it all before, it portends more than an aggression upon the connative order of things, but "an
attack upon the very essence of things themselves". Indeed on the things themselves even as they exist. Like mountains and oceans in monkeys and cats, a bad hand at cards and absinthe and all labor of
the mouth, but the soul shall not be filled. How, how, how, how such chopped logic comes in a pinch of dust to bring the strange portal, and then the descending left-hand path.
By dismal Cocytus,
the inscription over a door to Hell reads "abandon all hope, ye who enter here." The hours of doom are many, and dread as myriad and serpentine as the circles, after all, as Jesus said of Judas Iscariot, "it were better for him, if that man had not been born."
"... facilis descensus Averno;
noctes atque dies patet atri ianua Ditis;
sed revocare gradum superasque evadere ad auras,
hoc opus, hic labor est."
"... the path to Hell is easy:
the black door of despair is open night and day:
but to retrace your steps, and go out to the air above,
that is work, that is the task."
Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum. To err is human, to persevere in it is diabolical, where to know is an air -- even an atmosphere -- but not well joined, not knowing how to know, not recognizing the fair
or right way to know, yet "something unknown is doing we do not know what". Comedy, therefore, should not be the only hope, not more than annoyance, for exercise and experience in epistemic justification,
since the serenities too would put to rest an endless supply of reasons.
"To a green thought in a green shade", thought Freud over cigars, "it's funny how weird things can get", as he averred in reflection that the three men who had done the most damage to undermine mankind's self-esteem were Copernicus, Darwin,
and himself. And some of the results between them have been quite effective, significant if not funny, so that many people today, who otherwise should not be so, are now lost in the cosmos and evolved from monkeys and garbage.
"So it goes", Billy Pilgrim would say: caveat emptor in actu. Let the buyer beware in practice, and "we should learn as long as we may live", even if monkey see monkey do.
istimodi facturam, surely of that sort it is made, the Darwinian synthesis of things, that may seem quite alike, like such and such, yet to further complicate appearances, biology, and sales, and the comparison of receipts, there is a missing link too. After
all, considerable gaps in the scientific materialist account exist that cannot be covered within the current conception of biology. A peculiar enthymeme of nature then, appearing perhaps in some way of direction and intermediate forms, where sometimes it becomes
a question of place and metaphor, arising among animals and friends, et cetera, and in universal theory, as to how much some things should be valued for similarity.
Congreve the old playwright,
for example, confessed that he "could never look upon a monkey without very mortifying reflections." Yet implications and complications, implicated and complicated as they may be, and appearances can be deceiving. After all, even a fool deals in generalities
-- dolosus versatur in generalibus -- that by appearances he may deceive -- ut cum specie decipiat.
If the world is upside down and heliocentrism is correct, what difference does it make? To goat
liver and life on earth, animation is still animation, and like all the math, expressions are still expressions. Whatever circumstances, of circles and proportions, the motion and shape of things, and places and spheres of light, remain in cause and effect.
"Fair is foul and foul is fair" the witches from Forres heath echoed to MacBeth. The windswept plane closes in a small place, sometimes no doubt, where to face a stupid reality can be painful if not especially
difficult. The tempting or menacing evolution of involvement, a dark solution and the hot breath of a beast, if it was worth a candle, circulates between rocks and cauldrons, and a hard place.
false claims and absurdity of conduct to not vex the peace, then, at the root, it would only be a joke to consider not worse: the theory and market product of Darwin, as well as such modes of interrelation and interpretation as the case may be. If not
satisfied with monkey business within 90 days, you may return the order. However, some items like furniture may be non-refundable, and holiday gift returns should be sent to the Bishop or local ordinary of the diocese.
Even as far back as 11th century Scotland, "the weird sisters, hand in hand, posters of the sea and land", knew how something false may be hidden between appearance and reality, something occult between how something may seem and how
it really is. And "there's no art to find the mind's construction in the face" old Duncan added.
Depending on circumstances,
therefore, and level of customer service, making the faces of monkeys and men may run with some course of similarity. And marmousets, les petites gens, and the impressionble can buy that; yet appeals to emotion and creaturely impulse based on superficial
analogy are not really scientific. Because they have seen others and themselves, the warehouse world of Amazon and Wal-Mart, and howling monkeys in the trees, and have known such awareness of scandals and ridicule that run their course, they can believe that
they are interrelated, but what about produce? Are they not as pejorative?
What about the vegetables and fruits? Leeks, garlic, and
onions, for instance? Where do they come from? Why does the potato have eyes when all that he can see is underground? How does that help such a one survive the brutal contest of nature and life on Earth without despair? If fish could walk and dogs could talk,
and potatoes slept all day, it may not make any difference. If the purpose of life is to be happy, who should care?
event, thanks to more elevated animations, it may seem obvious that monkeys and men are guilty of some common ground of biological condition, beyond potatoes and coconuts, but what about the world of vegetation and produce, the great kingdom Plantae on
its own terms? Did pine trees evolve from dirt or the roots or the pine cones?
For cause of some formality in the presentation,
Darwinism is not sold in terms of oranges and cabbages, it goes without saying, but is it only for lack of animation? What about all the rich biology and generative attainment that are there between them: animals, vegetables, and fruits? How did
the plant kingdom come to be so significant and survive so fit, in such fitness, if it did not "evolve" as well?
Excellentia sic est mirantibus, excellence is a wonder, and the genetic
code for biological life -- the genome at the simplest substrata -- is similar across all kinds. As similar as parallel, since after all, the mechanism by which DNA information is retained, stored, and retrieved is the same among all kinds. The codons,
ribosomes, and fundamentals of DNA, meaning how it works, are the same from cauliflowers, broccoli, chickpeas, and squirrels to big birds, little birds, and humans.
Omne cellula de cellula: all cells are from cells. And there has not been any example of a mutation or evolutionary process which has been seen to increase the information in the genome.
Fatigue is fatigue, however, so how did apples and kiwi appear, arriving so well in the world of seeds and biology, with genesis, growth, and nutrition,
without a terrible struggle for existence or rigorous sample of chaos? Also why should the Chinese gooseberry, actinidia chinensis, and peaches and the mango have it so easy, when monkeys and men do not?
Like the triumph of the pineapple, as performance and sign, the heart given to know prudence and learning, with errors and folly, will have perceived that in these thngs there was labor also: and vexation
of spirit, and sorrow. Cor datus ut sciret prudentiam atque doctrinam, enim erroresque et stultitiam: agnoverit quod in his quoque esset labor: et adflictio spiritus, et maerentis.
Because in much wisdom there is much indignation: and he that addeth knowledge, addeth also labour. Eo quod in multa sapientia multa sit indignatio: et qui addit scientiam, addat et laborem.
And it will be seen that wisdom excels folly, as much as light differs from darkness. Et videbitur quia tantum praecederet sapientia stultitiam,
quantum differt lux tenebris.
People always know more than they think or remember, as their vision is more than they see; and
there was a Chinese restaurant waitress in Los Angeles, a pageant piano queen of obscurity, named Butterfly, sometimes called Cixi, and also Buttercup, who lived a quiet life on student loans, biscuits, and avocados. She loved pink tourmaline from San Diego
County, and sometimes would say, "yī xiào jiě qiān chóu": 一 笑 解 千 愁, that is "a smile can erase a million worries".
As a California scientist and beachcomber would, she knew
all about fortune cookies, and the insurance concept of inherent vice, strange things washed up on the beach, and the so-called "New World Order" of Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, like 9-11, BP, corexit, the Rothschilds and the central banks: and the difference
between jet fuel and thermite, also the difference between the heavy nose of a cruise missile of titanium and steel, and the lighter thinner one of a commercial airplane with only an aluminium covering, and for sociology class the laws of probability, similarity,
and association, et cetera.
Since there is more knowledge than direct experience, also in principles before things, it must be that epistemology
and wisdom are in some way immaterial. "Above the beauty of sky and earth is that of angels", and another continuation in digression perhaps, that everything looks alike or does not look alike, if not from far away as Galapagos. But not for any
purpose of confusion, Aristotle asserted three Laws of Association and a Law of Frequency that are considered today to be at the heart of most behavioral and assimilation learning theories. As they say, to wander in the mind with aetheric harmony may be bliss,
to float like a cloud across mountains and sea, and they are found in his work "De Memoria et Reminiscentia", and may be summarized as follows:
Law of Similarity – the experience or recall
of one object will elicit the recall of things similar to that object.
Law of Contrast – the experience or recall of one object will elicit the recall of opposite things.
Law of Contiguity – the experience or recall of one object will elicit the recall of things that were originally experienced along with that object.
of Frequency – the more frequently two things are experienced together, the more likely it will be that the experience or recall of one will stimulate the recall of the second.
Although it was a different day from Darwin or Chairman Mao in Papua New Guinea and the Marshall Islands, as far distant as China or Old South Tennessee, from another million miles away, Glenn Campbell agreed
with fortune cookie wisdom, when he sang "a smile can hide all the pain", strumming a Nashville guitar on TV in the 70's, the distant woodland past; but ultimately, to green vegetation and grocers, and so forth, to pine forests, philodendrons, or olive trees,
brightly oranges, and a waterfall in a rain forest, to what purpose are survival of the fittest and ferocious contests among beasts anyway? Does produce or vegetation exist for some reason other than harrowing stuggles of tooth and claw, magic
fang and beastly cares, and "survival of the fittest", or did they too just evolve for no account, except an overshadowing order of chaos, violence of motion, and great big numbers and estate coffers filing into the billions and billions, perhaps even trillions,
with no real positive end, except for every dog or rat who would have his day?
The global markets ebb and flow, and if
the privileges of absurdity should maintain value, the end of any transaction should be as good as the beginning; and patience should yet retain the returning balance and strength better than arrogance.
est finis quam principium
Melior patiens arrogante
"Les fleurs se respire dans sa hauteur"
Ho, ho, ho
"The flowers breathe from the height"
Quo vadis, civitatulae animula?
Vagula, blandula, hospes
Nunc quae abibis melancholia in loca?
Nec ut soles dabis iocos, in necropoleis?
where goest thou, little spirit of citizenship?
Pale wandering guest and friend of the body
Now where are you going with sadness?
Will you not make jokes as you used to, in the city of the dead?
There once was at another such time a question about the purpose of life, and how many grains of wheat are needed for a chessboard. If one grain is placed in the first
square, two in the second, four in the third, eight in the fourth, and so on, doubling the amount with each new square, they say the experiment goes 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 ... or for a big number 1 + (2) + (2)^2 + (2)^3 + (2)^4 + ... (2)^63 ...
Like the wheat and the chessboard, the theory of evolution plays with big numbers, in columns and rows, of this and that, and these and those,
yet with no fair way to begin and no real purpose that is wise for an end. So would it could it be the money? Because other than what the scientific materialist foundations and education system have been able to put in the bank, the mathematical difficulties
and improbabilities of Darwinism are extreme from more than one angle. The irreducible complexity of the cell, for instance, and the simple impossibility of forming even one moderate protein by random chance, eliminate Darwinism right away as not serving any reasonable
Darwin in the Galapagos Islands asked a big question with a big position when he asked, "why?" So much
so that Darwinism is also millenarian. Themed as much as why forever predicated of what, so many years and millenia of time, and then the mysterious digital-zero resource-money, make it metaphysical, an evocation and a go-between ... between worlds. Yet
there is no speciation or identity without a formal cause, and wth no clear direction the point of information is what?
A magnifying revelation in terms of explanation and resource funding,
when Darwinism speaks whimsically of various life forms from 300 million years ago, perhaps a billion, and so forth, it is a business of social doctrine, engaging in illogical metaphysical practices, almost like central bank debt, a manipulative triangulation
rather than legitimate empirical science. It may not be "Mars Attacks!" but it is not any sort of practical and natural empirical science justified by studying the flightless cormorant or crossbill finch.
By association and frequency, it could even become so strange at times that it may seem to be representing some sort of deceptive conspiracy, at work in the markets and the zeitgeist, if that is, in fact, what it is, and a resource method
of false indoctrination into overarching materialism and madness. As the prophet warned, "non dicatis coniuratio, omnia enim quae loquitur populus iste coniuratio est. Say ye not: A conspiracy: for all that this people speaketh, is a conspiracy." And as Richard
Dawkins once admitted, "we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
Darwinism also has been the fundamental explanation of life in Freemasonry. It is common knowledge that Freemasons
played a great role in its dissemination among the masses, and it "constitutes the basis of all anti-spritual philosophies."-1 There have been many complaints against a scientific materialist dictatorship, a false authority of self-aggrandizement cooked in
the books, by the Hegelian theory of life and infinite regress, that "is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."-2
"Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita" by Piccolo Tigre, cryptonym for Giussepe Mazzini, the famous Italian Freemason, dovetails
with the subversive ways of scientific materialism, the old 19th century euphemism for Marxism. The Marxist program has always included heliocentrism and Darwinism as its two main signs of the value in education and intellectual formation, so consider then,
for a monkey loop, the potentially diabolical angle that could be hidden in the world of weird science or politics.
Besides creatures from Jekyll Island and the Federal Reserve Bank, for example,
among other strange circles of acquaintance, and people like vampires, the story of Aleister Crowley and Jack Parsons of JPL lingers in the journey. The so-called founder of American rocketry at NASA's own Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Parsons, no doubt,
would prove again that rockets and baboons exist, and the monstrous scandal-lifestyle of secret society satanic weirdness from London to California. There are, in fact, Crowleyan black magic proportions in the haze, where even HBO and Hollywood would
fly to the Moon like Kepler, for sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and make a lot of money too, if to tell a lot of lies, lies, lies, of course.
Where things would coincide with positive facts, however,
and the introduction of logic, if any fools had evolved from monkeys and beasts, sadly it could have been Parsons and Crowley.
It was not just the standing rib roast buffet, with an open
bar in Vegas, and bad horoscopes to complicate things. Then there was an explosive old can of coffee, not expensive at first but criminal negligence perhaps, indeed but not coffee. It was full of mercury fulminate rather, not chicory, and far out of place
in the kitchen. Dangerously unsafe, such a thing, like strange ways of the devil, and sudden murder and tragedy in a forgotten diabolical time.
From way out west, a sad case for everything and the kitchen sink, but mercury of fulminate in a can is not flour as much as it is not coffee -- and not appropriate for cabinets or cupboards, not the blender either or the refrigerator.
As a leading JPL scientist and secret society adept, Jack Parsons must have known that, and the goat's head shampoo; yet somehow for the involvement in outrageous spiritual dangers and bizarre scandals of California, and stupidities of monkey-man proportions,
he lost it too and went ape.
"So it goes", Billy Pilgrim would say. Beauty and the beast without the beauty. Too much
is never enough, therefore, such likenesses to a troop of accepted rite monkeys or goats, or just another heliocentric protege of wickedness like Crowley, may be conceded, for tooth and claw and a load of garbage, even on legitimate scientific grounds.
Yet evolution still cannot explain why essential properties subsist in the instance, as much as geometry, and always tend to remain as they are: why mercury of fulminate does not brew like coffee, for example, and why the elements are the elements that they
are in the qualities of persistence. And why a championship Dachsund, for example, remains a Dachsund, and only another father of dogs, even after he wins many dog races?
A misery or not for rich and poor is that one can breed dogs for thousands of years, without trying too hard; but if there is no source of new genetic infomation, they will still be dogs. "The problem with evolution is that it has no way
of providing new genetic information."-3 Rather it is known by facts of experience that there is already a plenum, a vehicle of fullness in being itself through which nature operates, and that both natural selection and artificial selection, or cultivated
breeding, cause loss of genetic information.
the dog, the fish, the monkey, and the bat, animal is the genus of man, and the living or animated body is the genus of animal; yet without too much Platonic embarrrassment, genus is not simply matter but something derived from matter; and sensitive rationality
in the higher properties of intellect would be the specific difference that constitutes man in the form of his unique way.-4 It must be, therefore, that in the subsistent details of generalities that a principle of formal subsistence subsists within numerical
identity, that a gesture is a gesture as a motion is a motion, and a character is as upright as upright.
A rose is a rose is a rose as it subsists, as substance and seed relate to essential properties of being, kind, and becoming. As it is, as being is also what it is to be, to become, there is a form of presence and place more
than a mere quantitative heap. Before there comes a question of mutability, there always is a cardinal matter of subsistence, and at least the least immanence, since a program sign or place cannot arise spontaneously by random events. "There are immutable
reasons for things posited in place", and whatever there is that makes an impression or sequence follows from a primary and ultimate substance of form.
And so forth, "for if things came to being from nothing", or only random chance, "every kind might be born from all things, and none would need a seed. First men might arise from the sea, and from the land the race
of scaly creatures, and birds burst forth from the sky; cattle and other herds, and all the tribe of wild beasts, with no fixed law of birth, would haunt tilth and desert. Nor would the same fruits stay constant to the trees, but all would change: all trees
might avail to bear all fruits. But as it is, since all things are produced from fixed seeds, each thing is born and comes forth into the coasts of light, out of that which has in it the substance and first-bodies of each; and ’tis for this cause
that all things cannot be begotten of all, because in fixed things there dwells a power set apart."-5
To be simple, if possible,
for science there are seven basic errors in the air and environmental confusion within Darwinism, that include persistent faults in mathematics, biology, and logic. Darwinism cannot escape the three, and it is not mathematically, biologically, or logically
sound. As somebody once objected in disbelief at its pretensions, "evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program".
Almost a grimoire fantasy, an infernal
dictionary for somebody's strange entertainment in the land of the lost, without too much exaggeration, "the theory has helped nothing in the progress of science."-6 It is useless, in fact, except for posing more counter-factual background for the development
and maintenance of scientific materialist doctrine.
Like the worst little particles of atomic theory in quantum quackery, it is not really scientific but an exercise in socio-political doctrine
and ideology. "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".-7
If it would be scientific, however, as much as dogs chew shoes and eat the homework, Darwinism has lost its priorities, and the theory of cause is all out of order.
Even for monkeys and dragons, where the thing is not upside down, it nevertheless is going the wrong way, like NASA's stories about the Moon and Pluto, and why they need more spaceship money to the 100's and 1000's in 10's of zero's for fake trips to Mars
As every one should know, at the end of the day, there are only three orders of cause within science overall -- and a circle of equal causes is not possible, of course, and neither
is an infinite regress. There are only efficient, coincidental, and accidental causes, and these are not of the same order, which Darwinism always ignores.
An important yet simple beginning fact,
stuck in the middle among so many things, there are no accidental causes in the cue without some efficient and coincidental ones first. Without either accidents or mere luck of coincidence, every why
still hath a wherefore, and the occurrence of place is no accident. As much as whatever of the efficiencies in question are in place, or would be in consequence of nature, natural selection remains inadequate to account for the incipient stages of useful
structures. In short, it is plain to experience and geometrical proof that an authentically random process, that is unneccessary from the beginning, and proceeds by mere accidental or coincidental causes, cannot build codes according to hoyle and repeat
them. To undermine generalities in such a way is only talk-shop of an oxymoronic theory.
As Richard Dawkins himself commented
about the evident complexity of life, "where does all this information come from? It cannot come about by chance. It is absolutely inconceivable that you could get something as complicated as a bird, and as well designed as a bird or a human being ... coming
about by chance. That is absolutely out.
That would be like throwing a dice a thousand times and getting a six every single time. It is out of the question."
Yet if the Devil is in the details, "let them acknowledge the facts, even against the grain, and let them refrain from deceiving the ignorant". So too the biochemistry
and the genetic code obviously are of an order in the effect that is not merely accidental or coincidental. The clear facts of the irreducible complexity of the living cell, for example, remain beyond the level of random chance. Like the avian lung and
feathered wing, the genetic code and blood system that lead to a particular animal is so complex, and signed so many times over with degrees of "haecceitas", that it is logically and mathematically impossible that the correspondence of the creature in
question would be by some way of mere random luck.
Following from an order of efficient and biological cause, fortune cookie on top of moutain already know that "small as it is, the sparrow has
all the vital organs". 麻 雀 虽 小, 五 脏 俱 全, má què suī xiǎo, wǔ zàng jù quán. One cannot get the code by random chance much less the animal or the charm. The wonderful little birds that sometimes go tweety tweet for delightful
agreeability of circulation show that the where in the circulation of chance is also prepared. Tweety tweet, and the evidence appears again naturally from the irreducible and immediate complexity of the living cell.
Putative random processes in combination with natural selection cannot account for the development and growth of complex life forms; and the theory, in fact, has never
been observed or repeated, and there are no recognizable intermediate forms. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." There have been hoaxes, of course, and misrepresentations, like coelacanth and
archaeopteryx, Ida the lemur, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and Southwest Colorado man, but no legitimate intermediate forms.
The accumulation of gradual changes produced by chance has never been shown to add new information or increase complexity; and if there had been intermediate forms, they would not have been the fit ones anyway. They would have been defective.
In between reptiles and birds, for instance, there is not a transitional lung that would work in overcoming the struggle for existence. The two species are so separate in their respiratory systems that a
lung half this way and half that between them would have been a catastrophic failure in a young creature's quest for survival. And besides, reptiles are cold-blooded and covered with scales, whereas birds are warm-blooded and covered with feathers. Who has
not seen it? Quite different, even if Saturn would be in two different places at the same time, as between lizards and birds it still cannot be done for the arrangement in space of cause and effect, since birds have a lung unlike any other land dwelling species.
The avian lung is biologically cloistered, one place one breath at a time, and Darwin himself admitted that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly
have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."-8 And bird wings are another example of the steep improbabilities of nature falling into Darwinism, since the aerodynamic properties of the feathered wing
cannot be explained by evolution. For such wings to have gradually evolved is impossible, because a half-developed sort of wing is not an advantage but a disadvantage. The hypothetical transition from reptile to bird by such an unknown and weird process (of
what could be close to a wing but not a wing) would have been more than a stone too heavy to lift for the first poor albatross that came out of an iguana.
As mathematical impossibilities would go ranging across the cosmos, like deceiving fire-breathing dragons out of nine numerals and zero, to follow all the cell phone numbers in all the big cities, if someone lost his cell at home and
had no idea where it was, he could find it by calling it from another phone. The number to be called to ring the cell is an efficient cause of the ringing, the ringing that leads directly to the one cell that has been lost. When the cell rings and is
discovered, therefore, it is not by random chance, since the number called is an essential matter and goes to that one with specific efficiency in the details. The cell phone may have been lost by accidental or coincidencal means of whatever sort, but it only
rings efficiently to its number not by accident.
Two things to consider then -- garbage on garbage, mess upon mess -- are that if someone who is chronically stochastic introduces a random number
into any phone number, he will always dial the wrong number. If he keeps doing it, introducing a random element directly into the code, the situation will never get straight, and he will never get the right end of the line.
And if someone who did not know the number of the lost cell at all was asked to find it, calling the number only by guessing, the odds that he could dial the right number by blind chance are virtually and scientifically nil. The odds
are impossible that someone who did not know the number could call it at random and discover it: and to think that the knowledge required to call the number correctly is not created knowledge in the first place is absurd.
In the same rational way outlined by the numbers, the probability of something occurring by random chance that is 1 in 10^50 is regarded by professional mathematicians
as impossible. This and anything beyond it is fairly called mathematically impossible; and the average likelihood of some moderate sized proteins of about 500 amino acids, for example, forming at random chance is about 1 in 10^950, which refutes Darwinism
right away. The occurrence of such a number of improbability in the dynamic of life is also too much to fit in for the estimated age of the cosmos, and all the little atoms of atomic theory, even according to theories of the Big Bang.
For however long someone should wait for something impossible to happen, they will be waiting longer than what has already occurred. For instance, the odds of the
amino acids sufficient for a moderate sized protein to be in the right sequence by mere chance is 1 in 10^650, and that the amino acids also would be "left-handed" as needed is 1 in 10^150, and the probability of all the amino acids being combined with a peptide
bond is 1 in 10^150. The mathematical complexity of even moderate proteins alone, therefore, should be reckoned far beyond the level of random chance.
It is beyond contention that such an odd percentage for life as 1 in 10^950 or anything like it is beyond impossible ... times impossible ... times impossible ... times impossible ... etc., and the principle of order
in the motive origin of Darwinism is random chance in the first place, an oxymoronic theory in the basis, and mathematically impossible even in the case of one moderate protein, let alone the living cell itself. In so many ways, therefore, "evolution lacks
a scientifically acceptable explanation for the source of the precisley planned coding within cells without which there can be no proteins, hence no life," and if such a theory fails at any intermediate stage, the whole facade collapses.-9
The estimated number for how many different games of chess are possible is much less at only 10^120. Called Shannon's number, this would represent
the lower realm of the game-tree complexity of chess, which people regard as virtually infinite. It becomes a numberless boundary, even with only an average of 30 moves (or 60 ply) per game. It seems to go on and on, and is more than the estimated number of
atoms in the observable universe, which is from 10^78 to 10^82 atoms, which at first may not seem that impressive in comparison with a few protein molecules, but works out at around ten quadrillion vigintillion and one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion
atoms, for the visible world, and is practically inconceivable. Yet this is far less than the odds against forming one moderate protein by fish or goat by random chance.
As the mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle commented, "the chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the
chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."-10 Such an endeavor as life, therefore, cannot have had a random beginning, since part of the trouble "is that there are about two thousand enzymes,
and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."-11
Where one figures well in regard to the truth, he also guesses well in regard to probabilities besides non sequitors, like the seven main postulates of Darwinism,
for instance. Being illogical and vexing makes them unscientific, of course, a nuisance in addition to the fact that none of them bears repetition. To wit:
1. Nonliving matter spontaneously produced living matter at biogenesis
2. Spontaneous biogenesis according to #1 occurred only once, so that all present day life has descended
from one single cell
3. Different viruses and bacteria, plants and animals, all descended from one common biological ancestor. Therefore, they all are interrelated by power of the one secret and
4. The metazoans, many-celled organisms, are spontaneously developed from protozoans, the single-celled organisms.
The invertebrates are phylogenetically interrelated.
6. The vertebrates are phylogenetically interrelated with the invertebrates.
The vertebrates are phylogenetically interrelated.
In a way similar to heliocentrism, these postulates have been adduced without
reasonable scientific evidence, and also lack a center and proper sense of geometry. Relying for explanation on a superficial game of deception, short shrift, and big numbers, they would conceal basic errors and mechanistic occult actions-at-a-distance
with one dubious magic trick then another.
How would anything that is not in some way correct in terms of geometry actually exist or ever occur in the atmosphere of cellular space anyway?
Even as space is created, the background for geometry never tires and never sleeps, and can never lose in the struggle for survival as much as it governs all probabilities. As any chance has to have enough room, any drop of water, therefore, as much as the
breath and bubble of life, needs three dimensions for any congruence of relation. As much as any stability in experience needs an essential basis to carry through adversity, for an effective path to exist the next step beyond had to be there already.
In his own sense of congruities, Socrates, for example, thought that mankind has his way and his name from his gesture of looking up. Looking up and standing up, even to contemplate, "men are called anthropoi
from looking upwards; which, as philosophers tell us, is the way to have a pure mind. The word man implies that other animals never examine or consider so much to look up from as well as at what they see, but that man not only sees 'opope' but considers
and looks up at that which he sees, and hence he alone of all animals is rightly called anthropos, meaning 'anathron a opopen'."-12
And in Darwinism, the vertical is too restricted, and
becomes only horizontal, a manipulation which does not make good sense for a whole system of experience except the vanities of "Flatland". Contemplation and recollection rather will prove that "man does not live by bread alone", and the excesses in two-dimensional
numbers in the Marxist books are much too big and absurd for reasonable credibility.
It is obvious how the big numbers of Darwinism add up like a bonfire of the vanities. A team in diabolical
translation from jungle or swamp, from Big Bang Cosmology, and then around the bend to the globalist central banks, they have exaggerated the size of the cosmos by about 95%, and the age at least as much, likely more, and would also like to keep trillions
and trillions and zillions in metaphysical digital debt-money over the world of poor suckers, sometimes also called nations, or old sovereign states, which used to have qualified citizens.
it is that good people exercise common sense, real and honest science, however, does not need a game of big numbers in the same way. All that is needed to start are the essential properties in question, since the focus is on the correct attribution of facts
not relativistic and arbitrary tricks.
If one says there is no vertical, no such substantive, and would demonstrate that by
showing how flat yet excellent an area is for snakes, it would be a conclusion gained by prejudice of quantity taken only in one regard, but not by true facts. Even in isolation true facts rather must be whole. As much as anything is precise, the connection
to other true facts is continuous, as much as the penguin does not contradict the scorpion, for example, or the scorpion a ghost.
If one says that because there are amoeba, and because there are
spiders, fish, and frogs, and because there are monkeys and men, therefore, the amoeba gave rise to the man, it would be that the quantity of material should be taken in one way from the petri dish to intend to justify the conclusion. It would be that the
great quantity of the biological spectrum interpreted one way leads to the conclusion that the amoeba gave rise to the man; but this is a simple fallacy of affirming the consequent, an error of cause and effect to force an argument by confusing coincidental
relationships with essential causes.
For instance, we say if it is raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are
wet. Therefore, it is raining, but is it really? It may not be raining and the streets are wet for another reason.
Evolutionists assume the consequent. They say that since there is a gradation
from the more simple to the complex in the great quantity of biological life, and there is change, the more simple gave rise to the more complex. In a similar way, wisdom, understanding, and intelligence tend to increase with age and experience, since skill
also advances with practice from more simple to complex, which requires time, and more time. Gradually jugglers and clowns advance from more simple to complex in their lives too, so likewise, man has evolved and progressed from the amoeba and the monkey.
Besides drawing false analogies with strange dusty bones, and increasing the numbers of years beyond absurdity, Darwinian theory is there to reason from the conclusion back to the premise, without saying
too clearly which simplicity is which, or what rule in things must come first. However, Duns Scotus, a not-so-distant relic of the medieval past, with a little mathematics and logic, could endeavor to persevere in better accounts, to correct and
charitably emend the overgrown chapter of faults of Darwin, Dawkins, and the Department of Evolution.
The math in question is not only about big numbers but also the order of operations, and biology
is supposed to be a science after all, not superstition. Science cannot separate itself from mathematics and logic, and chaos as chaos cannot provide a source code for the many forms and generations of life.
Besides this, survival of the fittest and excellence in any species have never caused one to mutate and evolve into another. "There is no evidence to support the idea that
mutations are the engines of evolution. Almost all mutations are deleterious. Almost all of them do the organism absolutely no good. In fact, it is incredibly difficult to discover any mutations that do the organism any good whatsoever."-13 Even with excellence,
a thing or a creature will remain what it is -- conatus in quale quid -- as much as the circle must come back around.
mortals with mortality, and "nine million nine hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine tears to go", remain mortals; and the kingdom of Pluto remains morbid, as routine as the land of the dead. "Sine ut mortui sepeliant mortuos suos": let
the dead bury the dead, and the accumulation of gradual changes produced by chance, even if very cryptic or searching, has never been shown to add new information or increase genetic complexity. The qualities in the elements themselves remain the same, of
course, whatever the oppositions; and as a "leopard cannot change its spots," anything like a deer that survives does not change species because it survived. Darwin can lead blue ribbon cows and bambi to water, but he cannot turn them into pilot whales
or salmon by competitons for first place. The best cattle remain cattle, for all the finest pasture, and they say, "don't drive black cattle in the dark", because some things by nature must remain obscure.
Any discrete quantity is separate and distinct from the rest. "As fire cannot both heat and not heat, neither has anything that is always actual any twofold potentiality," as much as any voice that ever speaks,
for instance, pronounces only one word and one syllable at a time.-14
Modesty in speech is a great virtue certainly.
As King Lear said, "mind your speech a little lest you should mar your fortunes", and the first postulate that nonliving matter spontaneously produced living matter at biogenesis has never been proven. The theory of evolution is something along the lines that
"what made life on earth was the rays of the sun" shining with energy and reacting on inorganic matter: that produced life, "that financed life". So that as long as the sun was shining on the inorganic matter, there was a chance to increase the order and complexity
of the inorganic matter "right up to the order of living matter".
Like heliocentrism, it seems it could be another question
of devotion or style, or a recessed form of nature and sun worship, where pantheism and unceasing change turn the wheeel of life. Reckoned like a god, the sun would create life, yet it did not create the Earth, giving it form and its atmosphere. The sun by
itself, however, cannot bring carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur to life. Called "chnops" for short, in biochemistry these are regarded as the six essential elements that form the fundamental building blocks of life. Yet "chnops" by
the barrels will not come to life by random chance or from the richness and warmth of sunlight or lightning strikes alone.
is only matter, by itself a congeries of elemental atoms perhaps, and molecules, or clumps indeterminate as to any definite figure or end. However it is, without spatial distribution and delineation of forms retained in substance, things cannot have direction
or sequence. Living biological creatures cannot derive the breath that they have and their sustainable forms, and spatial patterns of subsistence or increase, only from matter qua matter qua atomic theories or the blob.
Ultimately, even the material dimension alone needs something more than particles to be as it is, as math itself describes more than the numbers. There is the how and why, of course, of the what in things, as it is also something somehow
about becoming and immanence in the operations and signs, in and over those numbers, which signs and operations are important through the substance of those numbers too. Therefore, substance is fundamental and common to all the math and penetrates any such
things, and substance is firstly a question of immanence not change.
People always know more than they think or remember, and right reason sees that an apple is an apple, and a little bit more
than an apple. Like knowledge and experience, it is a little bit more than a piece of fruit, which shows that truth and awareness in so many facts is in some way immaterial, since cognizance is part of so many relations yet something more to understand than
the material things alone: yet there is not a percentage of carbon that is enough by itself to bring something to life.
Anything true bears a certain relation to an exemplar, and an exemplar exists
also in the principles and their operations not just the things. To put an expression in things, and motion, for atomic chemistry to say that something is in so many parts, and give the proportions in an equation, still does not say what it is or describe
the sustainable form. As much as chess games or anything gamey, the form has to be cut into the material and out of it for it to exist as it is.
"Anything is as different from anything else as you like", yet today obeys the numbers as much as any day. As this as that in some likeness or other balance, the substance of difference can be no accident to account for so much between so
many things, and in a universal way, while itself remaining separate and simple. Quae semper differentia, commune vinculum omnibus artibus, whatever difference, there is a common bond in all the arts. If someone is stuck between a rock and a hard place, or
any Scylla and Charybdis, the triangulation carries as much weight as either side of the situation, and triangulation itself is not merely accidental even if things within the pattern are. As compartmentalization weaves in the occurrence, the occasion is not
the only thing, since the weave is total and always the same.
The difference in such a case as any circumstance, therefore, is not simply the amount or the number, but also more simply
the difference itself, which is common between two or more things, or as many things or all things that could be different and are. Blue remains as it is, green remains as it is, for example, and the difference remains as it is, all equally and casually so.
A mythical worm of negative and positive distinction separates, as one or many, whether most or least, greatest or less in scale as separation is separation, and separating is always the same
thing. As much as there is no contact among numbers only succession, there is no contact in the separation, and any separation can be represented by one symbol alone, a little glyph such as a dot, or an asetrisk, or a triangle, et cetera.
Atomic theories that there is no remaining substance in existence after all the little atomic cuts would appear to be contradicted by such a universal worm of separation, a spinning thread always there as such as
it is in the sphere of difference, whatever it may be. If the substance of difference is not an accident, therefore, wherever or however it is, are accidental things so much more important? Experience in separation is greater than the separation? Are accidental
things really so much more important than the simple difference? If everythng was one more or one less, it would not make any difference, since about such a principle, a type of transcendence between all accidents or reticulation, the worm of separation parallels
all quality before quantity.
Wherever it is, the golden ratio is over and in things, and has been seen rising in whirlwinds and sea shells, for example, but even the ratios by themselves
do not make or break the forms and utility of things. For instance, rotating the diagonal of a square over and over again to make a sculpture leads nowhere out of a mess. A percentage by itself is not enough to bring about a complete relation, purpose, and
form in reality.
Therefore, as much as fortune cookies and small business accounting, science should know that atoms by themselves
do not create forms or the acting principle, and the explanation of the difference is causally prior as much as the necessary existent in any question is unique. Cutting everything to pieces with atoms always leaves something else; and since the rudimentary
and insensible world of matter is a heap without immanence of forms, Plato, for one, would never believe in something like Darwinism. If by its nature mathematics itself, in the substance of it, undermines atomic theory, which underpins Darwinism as things,
it is amazing that so many people still believe in it.
Quantum theory and relativity cannot explain geometry and trigonometry, as so, any better than they already explain themselves or why there
is no contact among numbers but only succession. By self-evident principles and logic, as well as any prestidigitation, according to the conformity to an exemplar, it must be true that "any form that can be recognized in a subject can also be known in
itself and in the abstract apart from the subject".-15 There simply must also be a formal cause for the things we see. Immanence, therefore, is something more than atomic; and things people see either have been made that way formally, even in some way from
eternity, or have been impressed and affected by some qualification of existential design.
If a scientist or doctor, or someone who reads science magazines at the grocery store, asks a question
about the human species, he also asks a question about the human form, not just salt in the bones. A chiropractor, for example, is a qualified physician, if not a medical doctor -- and however insurance claims work, the profession is more than a question of
only "cracking necks and cashing checks", to be a good one. The reality of so many forms involved in the business of survival contradicts all of Darwinism, which must go only according to nominalist materialism, and the vexations and mechanisms of atomic theory.
Since Darwinism rejects a creationist model for life, it has to rely on mechanistic and atomic theories for all its content. "If atoms do, by chance, happen to combine themselves into so many
shapes, why have they never combined together to form a house or a slipper? By the same token, why do we not believe that if innumerable letters of the Greek alphabet were poured all over the market-place they would eventually happen to form the text of the Iliad?"-16
One of the first atomic theorists was Democritus, and Aristoxenus wrote that Plato hated his anti-immanence theories so much that he wanted to burn
all his books, but he could not because the books were already in wide circulation, so he intentionally avoided any mention of Democritus in his own writings -- since Plato realized that if all matter consisted only of tiny particles called "atoms", then there
still would not be any account for their subsistent forms in space.
From the fifth century before Christ until the nineteenth century, the argument had persisted as to whether or not matter
is composed only of atoms. Democritus saw that if a stone were divided in half, the two halves would have essentially the same properties as the whole. Therefore, he figured that if the stone was cut into smaller and smaller pieces continually, then at some
point there would be a piece which would be so small as to be indivisible. He called these small pieces of matter "atomos", a Greek expression for indivisible or uncut, and theorized that atoms were specific to the material which they composed, and that they
differed in size and shape, were in constant motion in a void, and that they collided with each other and during these collisions they could rebound or stick together.
Democritus would say that
changes in matter were a result of dissociations or combinations of the atoms as they moved through the void. Although Democritus's theory was revived by Dalton, and since Dalton's time the atomic point of view has been taken for granted, Aristole and Plato
and Greek philosophy in general rejected these ideas, on principle, as not having a fair relation to substance.
may combine in simple proportions to form compounds, as if distinct atoms of one were in combination with a number of atoms of another, they still must bring an account for the shape of space in the structures of mathematics as much as any simple mixture.
There is still something more than atoms to explain knots and the form and nature that obtain in the surface composite. As much as mere quantity cannot give rise to consciousness, neither can details of atomic theory in various percentages and chains of tiny
charges in the tiniest particles give full description to living forms. Atomic theory cannot explain the circulation and function of warm blood, for example, or the plague, sepsis, and staph infections any better than it can explain geometry, trigonometry,
For all the research and money, a particle of connection is a sign and an aspect, an angle, and Darwinism adds up poorly for a school of aesthetics, as well, and it cannot explain the
natural attraction of the golden rule. Symmetry has been scientifically proven to be inherently preferred by the human eye, which feels some natural delight at the discovery of a harmonious composite or relation hidden in the picture of things.-17 As much
as good balance and symmetry are preferred in aesthetics and society, the circle balances all; and as much as it would represent a universal circle, the human face is the preferred image of recognition in art and for the interpretation of signs. Understanding
art requires the cognitive interpretation of symbols, and eyes or a face can be hidden and then reflected in many things, like trees, branches, and leaves in the woods, rocks and walls in caves, mountains and clouds, and the faces of vehicles and other animals.
"Representation by likeness is infinitely better than representation by any chance sign",(18) and the human face can weigh things like a secret balance, where "perfection comes about little
by little (para mikron) through many numbers".-19 At times such an image could be interpreted even as a little cloud of elevation, a sign concealed then super-imposed in many other things, and sometimes it can have a remarkable halo effect due to a perfection
associated with angels, et cetera. Even where it is not anything more than something to do with math and laws of relation, this phenomenon of the circle, and proportion of the face and eye, cannot follow from a principle of chaos or chance evolution.
Better is the end of a thing than its beginning, yet it seems sometimes today that "everybody gets so much information all day long that
they lose their common sense". Only for trivial pursuit then, and curiosities of the periodic table, the human body is composed mostly of oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%). These four elements and calcium (1.5%) and phosphorous
(1.2%) are said to account for 99% of the body's mass. Sulfur (.25%), potassium (.25%) and chlorine (.2) and sodium (.15%) add up the rest along with lesser amounts of magnesium and iron in cellular proteins and hemoglobin, and there are trace elements
of cobalt, copper, zinc, iodine, selenium and fluorine, et cetera.
As much as they are in the elements too, sounds by themselves or chicken scratch on paper do not make words or names. Adding up
chemical elements and molecules in their percentages likewise will not make a living person either, of course. Counting them all from memory over ten fingers of two hands will not make a doctor or a chemist, of course, and it may not even get a cup of coffee
if somebody can sing it and add entertainment personality.
one takes a can of sardines, or as many of them as there are or have ever been, the sun will not bring any of them to life. Any can of sardines is an open system that will allow the sun's energy in and out; and in practical terms is as good a candidate for
generating life as any acre of primoridal soup could have been; yet the sun cannot bring life out of it by heating it up during the day and letting it cool down during the night, as it goes circling away around the Earth.
Experiments with fire and light, or lightning strikes in cans of sardines, could be repeated many thousands of times with many thousands of cans, and nobody from the Department of Agriculture or Department of Health would expect that
it would work to create life. Nobody believes in the remotest way that it is possible to bring life out of cans of sardines with lightning or by setting them on fire with magic oils and letting them sit in the sun. Life as a probability and a pattern is not
something that will not come out of a can of sardines by putting energy in and heating them up or taking energy out and cooling them down.
the way to get life out of a can of sardines is to add a DNA molecule of bacteria, like escherchia coli, that already has a program of subsistence and replication. A DNA molecule with e coli information on it added to the sardines would bring a whole bag of
tricks springing alive to produce e coli; but sunlight does not add the programming, the information that is necessary for life. It only contributes its energy.
Like the primordial soup, what is lacking for the can of sardines et consommé in the sun is not that the temperature is right or wrong. What is lacking is a living program, and blunt matter, time, and energy by themselves are
not enough to bring it about, since what is still needed is a program of information like DNA, a cellular storage and retrieval system. Something directive must be in the blood, and where Darwin in his day would say that "matter plus time plus energy equals
the cell", such a formula of explanation lacks sufficient cause. Lacking an efficient order of causae per se, it fails without the necessary information.
Omne vivum ex vivo: all life is from life, and there is not an egg or shell resolved without its code and a principle seed that make it what it is. As Anaximander(610-546 BC) said, "each thing springs from its own proper principle".
The motive for the second postulate, that spontaneous biogenesis according to #1 occurred only once, so that all present day life has
descended from one single cell, is that the genetic code (the genome) for all life is the same, meaning how it works is in common overall. So it would follow that it is unlikely, if not impossible, that a genetic code like that, as complicated as it can be,
yet so much in common in the extension of life, would have formed twice exactly the same by chance. If it had formed a second time by chance, it very probably would be very different from what it was the first time. Since, however, in all nature it is the
same, theory must say that all of nature is derived from one single cell.
It will not happen a second time like that, of course, so it only happened once, because ... and since all of time cannot
be taken together more than once, in total, as any number cannot be taken together for more than it is, and as all of time is only one natural order, it will not happen again, surely ... since it could only happen once, to be improbable and impossible as it
was the first time, and it needed a billion plus years to happen that one time anyway.
It would not be reasonable to expect
the aforesaid and so forth to happen again, the more one looks at it, because it was simply unnecessary also, as all random things are. Disconnected as it was, there was no necessity in it for it to happen from anywhere in the first place -- especially against
such precipitous odds. "The doctrine of evolution explains that nothing produced something from nothing"(20), and reason knows that it was basically impossible the first time. Therefore, there is no need for it to happen again like that now that life is this
way. For one thing that is so impossible to happen the first time by random chance is enough. It is not reasonable to expect that that which is so impossible should happen twice.
And so, for an abysmal recitation of science, if sick fun as torture, it has remained a theory set against astronomical odds, yet worshipped and prized like a reliquary in the lab. Occurring only once, by
random chance in the beginning, it cannot be repeated, but the correct basis of a scientific fact is that it can be repeated. In fact, it must be repeated. Therefore, this postulate is unscientific. Like heliocentrism, it seems to be only another excuse for
a dungeon system of philosophical preferences for mechanistic interpretations and godless delusion. Abyssum abyssi invocat.
much as the thing is mechanistic, Darwinism is also semiotically odd, since the term "beginning" intuitively implies order. "Primordialis", "primordium", and "exordiri", "exordium", for example, not to mention arkhein and arkhe*, are words for the beginning,
and all rely on the concept of order to express the meaning. They agree in natural sense that a beginning has to be programmed with information, some direction of impression, and in the case of biology in the living things from the earliest dawn.
For good order, the first step forms a queue of one, for a mile or ten miles of irreducible complexity, which means walking did not "evolve", or prevail, merely because walkers experience genesis, growth,
and nutrition, but rather the phenomenon fits to function. What always fits is the way something is, and "just as the information in books has to come from an intelligent source, so the huge amount of genetic information in living things must come from an
intelligent creator."-21 Mathematically, the evidence fits a creation model, where there is a lot of genetic information in the beginning, allowing adaptation within kinds, and much of the original information, perhaps in cases, has been reduced later or degraded
or refined since then.
Postulates 3,5,6, and 7 about the interpretation of interrelation among kinds are all unproven assumptions.
People could say that Brutus was related to flies, and Julius Caesar was descended from ants, but it cannot be proven any more than it could that Ann Coulter is related to giraffes or from another planet.
physicists do not find giraffes hiding in kitchens, but many people could believe that Ann Coulter making her rounds may seem unusual, a little bit different, perhaps out of the ordinary. However, proofs by analogy -- without a more definite genetic algorithm
-- to say, therefore, that she is a wood nymph also related to Africa by the giraffe, because of the way she looks from certain angles, shall always be insufficient and only beg the question "why"?
do Ann Coulter and some big birds appear similar to giraffes? Why the long neck here and the long neck there, if they are not related? There are the lips and the teeth, and they seem to have the same major systems; and when it comes to the banana, the similarities
of biology are unmistakable. Therefore, if not as well as Pisces Venus aspecting Saturn and the Moon, it must be that they all have some common ancestor in the fish.
Darwinism's method of proof
by anterior equivocation, in the clues of creatureliness, however, does not and cannot provide a valid scientific answer. We must know more, yet the electron miscroscope tells us this is the wrong way. Because Darwinism inevitably brings up some logical questions
about the equivocities of being, and "haecceitas", and univocal predication, it also could illustrate some of the limits of proof by analogy, and the fallacy of an infinite regress, as well as the fallacy of a circle of equal causes.
Where "haecceitas" helps explain how forms and subsistent individual
identities may exist within species and genera, for example, that does not necessarily mean that Coulter and the giraffe have evolved from some long lost common ancestor, because they both have two big eyes, two ears, a long neck and nose, funny lips and tongue,
with somewhat similar circulatory and nervous systems for being warm blooded, and like to eat leafy salads and look at trees. No, no, not at all, rather the what-is-this between them still proceeds in two separate directions among things.
The specific cases directly involved in all the little species of their antecedent biological
generations can be perfectly exclusive of each other, yet the giraffe and Ms. Coulter remain related by evidence of generic properties and proof by analogy, besides habitat, range, and whatever other circumstances. As they are, closely similar structures of
diverse origin in creatures may co-exist in harmony, without being related one to another with that generational "haecceitas" and specific "thisness" of a shared biological ancestor. Even if science counted all the fish in the sea, and beer cans
and deer by the beach, so it goes for the entire kingdom Animalia, with its clade Mammalia, and the many people milling about in New York City.
It is the same thing with doubles and look-alikes, and spies hiding behind garbage cans by the road. They are not necessarily related like actual family or by a family tree -- that is to say phylogenetically -- simply because
Appearances can be deceiving, and the 4th postulate that the metazoans, many-celled organisms, are spontaneously developed
from protozoans, the single-celled organisms, would also say that for the sake of evolution one can expect to get a restaurant out of a cup of coffee, but this is not really true. Rather impossible again, as much as one cannot get Wimbledon from a tennis ball
either, or from Walmart, one cannot get a restaurant from a cup of coffee any more than a cupcake. A cup of coffee lacks sufficient information by itself to produce a restaurant or elephant ears, flying saucers, or bear claws in a bakery too.
Ersatz coffee and piles of sawdust only add to the proof. They can make bad coffee mix from refined substitutes, add sugar, and it does not ever go much further than that.
As Professor Werner Gitt, a specialist of information theory and director at the Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Brunswick, Germany said, "the biggest problem
in evolution is origin of information. Where is the information coming from? It is impossible to come from a simple living being to an elephant or a human being. It needs very much more information, and information cannot come by a random process. It is impossible
that new information is coming from a random process."
Since information is ordinal by nature and must have a source, if we see a bridge,
we must say there was a bridge builder. If we see a cell, we must say that the information necessary for it came from before. "The existence of art presupposes the artist, and it is through the beauty of the world that we recognize a benign creator."-22
For instance, when Richard Dawkins was asked if he could give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process that had increased the information in the genome, he could not speak. He was totally
As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner pointed out in "Not By Chance", Darwinism cannot account for the large scale of things. "It cannot account for the build-up of information. It is very improbable
that there can be many small steps of evolution, many small changes adding up to one large change. And not only is it improbable on a mathematical level, that is theoretically, but experiementally one has not found a single mutation that one can point to that
actually adds information. In fact, every mutation that I've seen reduces the information. It loses information."
This is because
the information required for lare scale evolution can not really come from random mutations. The Darwinian model says that it does, but nobody has ever made a calculation or genetic algorithm to show that it works, yet Dr. Spetner has made a verifiable scientific
calculation to show that it does not.
"If one were to believe the Darwinian account, you would have to say that information is built up gradually in small steps, a little bit at a time. And if
one examines the mathematics of this sort of thing happening, it turns out that one has to assume that at any stage in evolution there are a large number of possible mutations that could occur that could be adaptive. And if there are a large number, then we
should be able to find some today, and the fact is that we do not. All the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it."
That way in the details of molecular biochemistry, Darwinism tends to its own darkness and loss. Evolution would say that complex life forms came from simpler ones, but random processes with natural selection
and survival of the fittest cannot account for it. Such macro-processes of development have never been observed or replicated; and whenever random changes are introduced into a code, they disrupt the sequence and even render it useless.
If evolution by its own definition was not so technically random, it would be more like the tares in the parable of wheat and tares. Not even truly random, or a simple question of accident any more, where the confusion
is from an alienating design, it becomes a bad seed, ruinous, since it obviously is wrong: and a bad seed is a bad seed like a rose is a rose, et cetera.
So it goes, yet every
seed and every vision would have some purpose. There must be an end as much as there must be teleology since results are natural. For instance, Trevor Lamb, a neuroscientist at the Australian National University, decided to look into several questions surrounding
the so-called evolution of the human eye and its aptitude for sight.
“There are profound questions about the eye which are still not easy to answer because it appeared so very long ago,”
he said. “Why did the eye develop? Why are there many different kinds of eye, including one for insects and crustaceans — and one for vertebrates like us?”
Lamb examined a wide
range of studies, that supposedly traced back "700 million years, to when the first light-sensitive chemicals known as opsins began to appear in simple, single-celled organisms." It is supposed, according to theory, that while primordial organisms already
had some signaling pathways, opsins enabled them to sense light for the first time -- so very long ago, in a fabled land far, far away, that was whirling and whirling around at many incredible and different speeds at once, to orbit the Sun, because of Newtonian
"gravitation" too, and the Big Bang by the inverse squared, etc.
“But these animals were tiny, and had no nervous system
to process signals from their light sensors,” Lamb said.
During the following 200 million years, further supposed without any practical proof, "evolutionary pressures allowed for emerging
organisms to develop more sensitive and more reliable vision;" and after that they say that, "around 500 million years ago, many organisms had developed something that resembled the cone cells found in our eyes."
Marvelous, and “the first true eyes, consisting of clumps of light-sensing cells, only start to show up in the Cambrian, about 500 million years ago — and
represent a huge leap in the evolutionary arms race,” Lamb said. “Creatures that could see clearly had the jump on those that could not.”
“For example, there is Anomalocaris, a meter-long predator like a giant scorpion – the 'Jaws' of its day – which had eyes the size of marbles, with which to navigate the ancient seas and locate its prey,” Lamb
continued. “This beast, which employed the insect eye model with many facets, had no fewer than 16,000 facets containing vision cells, in each eye.”
According to the Australian neurologist, these emerging eyes generated an enormous amount of signaling information, known as optic flow, which was sent across the ancient creature’s nervous system.
“This all has to be processed, so we also begin to see the rapid development of a central nervous system able to cope with
such immense amounts of data, continually provided by the eyes and other sensory organs from the world around the animal,” Lamb said. “For the first time animals begin to ‘see’ the complex landscape which they inhabit.”
Whoppers, déjà vu can explain everything, since it also was that way before, and while the insect eye was allowing
for some creatures to navigate their environment, an early precursor of our own eye was also developing in ancient sea creatures. Lampreys, a really artistic weirdo in the primordial soup, came on the scene around 500 million years ago, with a set of “camera-style”
eyes that looked very much like our own.
“From this we can say that the vertebrate-style eye has been around
at least 500 million years — and although its light-sensors and signaling systems are very similar to those of insects and other invertebrates, its optical system evolved quite independently from the insect-style eye with its many facets,” and
so forth, said Lamb.
Alwaysthemore, nevertheless, even the bottomless pit represents only another challenge in cause
and effect, and from that point, the vertebrate eye became refined and specialized by various organisms, including fish, reptiles and mammals.
Yet space itself, not just the objects within it or sight, must be created, since it all follows from cause and effect. Cause and effect can explain everything, even where there is no contact among numbers but only succession. Like
accounting, where everything is the same or different, it always is the simplicity of operation that ties it all together, of course, and “the advent of spatial vision provided immense survival value to the creature that had it — but the process
occurred slowly, over countless steps, with the transition from a simple eye spot to the vertebrate-style camera eye possibly taking as long as 100 million years,” he concluded.-23
Yet if there is any virtue or marvel in nature, other than hearing, which could correspond at once to a rank of immediate dynamism, or purely instantaneous, it would have to be the gift of sight. "Seeing
is believing", even if it may be as difficult to explain how a nerve comes to be sensitive to light as how life originated.
Sometimes even at first sight, with clear vision,
one can see in an instant. Like hearing, the experience and recollection can come as close to virtually instantaneous as possible for the present as motion as may be discoverable on a natural plane of awareness. Darwin himself wrote that "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 been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess,
absurd in the highest degree."-24
The many sophisticated features of an organ of such extreme balance and perfection,
like the human's or hawk's eye, for example, are so interdependent that the explanation of gradual development proposed by evolution is practically abusrd. And the gift of sight operates in a system where the brain is totally insulated from light, of course.
From mysterious design seers may observe a luminous world out of the pitch darkness of the brain where it is completely dark inside and no light reaches. The center of vision in which sight represents the world to grey matter is never touched, and may be one
of the darkest places to be imagined. Yet the visible images formed and magnified to it from the camera of the eye are so sharp, distinct, and bright that even the best technology of the 21st century cannot copy or surpass it.-25
If anybody believes in "God", or the power of an infinite being, he should not believe in Darwinism. Action or motion from an indivisible
as infinite power is always instantaneous, and does not need any stages of development in itself or from anything. Even as proceeding in relation to creation, God's action is unique and not something graduating within Himself. Whatever the purposes involved
for others, He never went to school to learn how to act and be who He is or experience what He knows. Rather in such a case, to go by steps of development, much less with a little bit of luck, as in evolution, does not fit at all with the ontological category
of an infinite mover, an uncaused uncausable Supreme Being, and the theory is absurd to address the infinite motion which would characterize the ultimate source of things.
When the Gospel says "with God all things are possible", it does not mean Darwinism, of course. "It is precisely because He is omnipotent that for Him some things
are impossible". It would not mean that all things are appropriate to God either, or that God would or could do things in a way that would be repugnant to his own nature and way of being, et cetera.
school says, as well as fortune cookie, that the Supreme Being is supernatural, unique, and all-powerful; yet this only means that with all reasonable hope, the grace of good will may be warranted by a
transcendent faith. Even so, the truth admits that some things remain impossible to God, as they would also contradict the essence of such a wise and incomparable nature, and be inappropriate to a supernatural, intelligent, and infinite condition of eternal
life, et cetera.
Beyond doubt how natural things grow and develop is radically different from how an infinite power would
create. What needs time and space is not God even where it is absolutely common to universal nature. The theory of Darwinian evolution is completely inappropriate to instantaneous acts characteristic of an infinite mover. Even as an abstraction, it is fairly
impossible that an infinite being would of himself, in his own superlative way of being, act gradually as in evolution, and create species by stages of random chance with mechanistic natural selection.
And by its own terms, evolution is not to be evaluated as something transcendent, metaphysical, or instantaneous anyway, but rather so gradual, competitive, and ephemeral. Darwinian evolution is considered
as a mechanism to develop and act only on a strictly natural plane. It does not transcend the hypothetical processes involved that also happen not to be in accordance with an infinite, indivisible, or instantaneous mover. The
theory of blind chance in a series does not represent an instantaneous, indivisible, or infinite motion or activity, of course, but always at best the solidity of the oddly natural one.
Evolving creatures and so forth cannot act instantaneously even to survive. Gradually they say, therefore, with a little bit of luck, and a little
more luck, then so on with a great parade of big numbers for a throne at the zoo. Yet no matter how lucky, sleek, and strong they get by chance mutation and survival of the fittest, their motions are in parts; and it always remains extremely difficult, if
not impossible, for any principle of entity to escape its origins. Like a leopard and his spots, a fish cannot change his scales or a bird his only beak that is the one there between his two eyes.
The circle and the parade come back around, and an infinite, indivisible, and instantaneous mover like God is not prevented from acting and manifesting on the natural plane because of numbers and the potential
divisibilty of signs. It goes without saying that revelation and wonders are possible, but infinite acts still are not natural. They are absolutely perfectly instantaneous, which is very uncommon to present experience. Not in a sequence from divisible substance
or forms per se, an infinite power, if one exists, would not create by stages but indivisibly at once. When an infinite power acts, it does not go by any measure of units, except for the relation of extrinsic results that manifest in creation; and it
does not exist by chance at all, therefore, it is not fitting that an infinite mover should be considered to act by such an informal yet gradual mechanism of change and chance as "evolution".
Instantaneous activity as well as the indivisible fits with an order of absolute sameness not acts of merely natural survival. Selections by this or that opportunity to survive, when in between, and experience
an advantage in and among things, and the range of mutability among creatures, are not always the same. There is the introduction of difference among many things, and one difference more that always persists. Therefore, whatever is postulated of mutabilities
and grades that go up or down in natural creatures is not appropriately applied to or logically considered of an infinite mover. The Biblical account of creation is better in this way, where the
putative primordial agency of the soup postulated by Darwinism is not. It is so difficult a climb for logic to find a substitute resource for what makes the best sense that an infinite being or mover that would compare with something even just a little too
finite, even in one or two steps of the forgotten past, appears nonsensical and absurd for the comparison.
The scientific problems
of the fossil record are in disagreement with Darwinism too, since what is there has revealed a sudden emergence of forms, as in the cambrian wave, with no intermediate creatures. According to the theory, species must have evolved from pre-existing forms,
however, there is no complex life form known to have existed before the trilobites and other species of the cambrian period. For example, more than 30 invertebrate species such as jellyfish, starfish trilobites, and snails appeared all of a sudden, quite suddenly
as if at once, during the cambrian without any ancestors.
Richard Dawkins and everyone else admit that "it is as though the
species of the Cambrian were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."-26 "The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate the expectation of finely graded changes over time".-27 Rather, as is well known, fossil species typically appear immediately,
and strange unexpected things, like soft tissues and pliable ligaments, and blood cells and blood vessels from the creature itself, have been discovered on dinosaur bones, as well as the difficult to explain remains of humanoid giants.-28 Any soft tissue or
ligaments from dinosaurs cannot be from that long ago, so these discoveries completely throw off the mega-distant time scale and overall context of Darwinism.
And radiocarbon 14 dating is notoriously unsound. "The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which it was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600
years."-29 In another case, scientists obtained dates of 164 million and 3 billion years ago for two Hawaiian lava flows, but these happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.-30
the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic, was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago."-31 And "the Carbon-14 contents of the shells of the snails of Melanoides tuberculatus living today in
artesian springs in southern Nevada have indicated an apparent age of 27,000 years."-32
Also there is overwhelming field evidence for a long ago large-scale catastrophe from something like a worldwide flood that covered the Earth, as described in the Bible, and other traditional legends like the destruction of Atlantis,
et cetera. Numerous fossilized remains of whales and dolphins in the desert, for example, and crustaceans in high mountain altitudes, have been discovered that bear no other simple explanation.
Darwin himself wrote in the "Origin of Species" that "if numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent
with slow modification through natural selection."-33 This very stumbling block comes with a fatal stroke right from the Cambrian explosion.
The main taxa such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and the many different species within them all appear suddenly in distinct structures. As Dr. Albert Fleischman a zoologist at Erlangen University said, "the theory of evolution
suffers from the gravest of defects which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge. The Darwinian theory of evolution has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature." Like
Stacy Keach, Neville Brand, and Jason Miller putting on airs, crawling on the floor, and scraping noses in the dirt in "The Ninth Configuration", Darwinism would tend to keep dogs and men in a bizarre circle, following a bad line and hook into the abyss.
Even for Sci-Fi channel, the first order of magnitude in a lving species is in the nature and kind anyway, not in the concurrence with
localized time. When in likeness it always is like that, the magnitude of speciation impressed in the circle of the type provides primary detail and quality before the question of time.
Subjects like time and space,
as well as symmetry and asymmetry of events and objects within them, will have to conform to first principles of cause and effect anyway; and as Aristotle noted, no matter the scale, statements and beliefs cannot change. So the proofs of calculation are found
in the appropriate relation of facts and defintions even before the question of magnitude or size. Not only how old is the living creature or its bones in a species, or any similarity, how old is the space the form in question takes between east and west and
the poles? How old is the first triangle in animal experience? As old as the first triangle? After all, any account as large as creation and human history amid the world of objects should be as well ordered as geometry, even for a billion years and a triangle
in a triangle.
It should not be too difficult to see that the essential cause of numerical identity in principle is before the coincidental or accidental. Therefore, the accumulation
of time by a species does not have priority over inherent characterisics involved from within its speciation in nature and kind. The priority of a thing is related to essential properties of what and how and over whatever amount of time it has been working.
Olive trees do not turn into something else as long as they live, and the essential property itself is what generates and brings things like the olive and olive oil full circle.
Even in chronology, quality comes before quantity, which one before how many; and the logic and order of cause and effect, involved in the steps in a process like olives and olive oil, for example, is of
greater weight than the dimmest distant caliginous accumulation of many days, weeks, and years. Years after years, etc., and there simply are situations where one cannot get this from that, no matter how much time and how absurd and unfathomable the numbers.
For instance, if the first order of magnitude in blue jays and cardinals is not that they are what they are as they are, then in every
circle of instantiation the sequence is broken. Rather for birds of a feather and finite creatures that follow naturally after seed and kind, it is not how many years they have been in existence, but
what they are like. Even for humans, sometimes it does not matter what day of the week or year it is either; and any one of the birds is the same thing no matter what time it is in occurrence.
qua time is only quantity of minutes and seconds around the clock, tick tock, tick tock, the tapping, tapping, tapping, always tapping, yet quantity alone does not make quality. A heap is a heap until some suitability caps it, and the little creatures of the
forest are not infinite obviously but remain as they are, suitable as this or that, with creaturely habits and degrees of sameness, by simple continuations in a seedline, et cetera.
As per origin of species, a nest built by any one of these birds is the same thing and purpose no matter the decade; yet Darwinism would falsely try to impress the mind with an order of magnitude wrapped
up in the dimness of millenia after millenia. Total absurdity in a time scale of big numbers would prevail and take place over the simple aim and essence of the creature's life. But this is a way out of order, since the accidental and coincidental must follow
a first cause and form of substance. When the nest is built, it is from the creature working within its nature by a principle of native intuition that contradicts evolutionary theory -- because it revolves from a process not dependent on the development of
centuries or even millenia. Rather it manifests from within the immediate genesis and lifespan of the creature.
immediate awareness and "animal skills are not learned. Now for example, birds fly, aquatics swim, and terrrestrials walk. Is this done by learning? Certainly not. Each of the above-mentioned creatures does it by nature."-34 Not learned is not evolved, and
pelicans do not go to school to learn how to evolve and be pelicans. "Likewise, of course, bees make honeycombs by nature, not by learning. Spiders also make their fine work of lace spontaneously."-35
There are a lot of things science cannot explain, including the presence of the Lake Baikal seal, which is the only freshwater species of seal, also living only in Lake Baikal, an extremely remote rift lake
in Southern Siberia not far from Mongolia. Completely surrounded by steep mountains and harsh terrain, it remains a mystery how it got there, swimming under the light of a full Moon. Darwinism cannot explain the koala bear, the Kangaroo, and the wombat
in isolated Australia either. They must have gotten there before the divisions of Pangaea, when the seven continents formed one great land mass, as it would have been in the legendary days of Atlantis perhaps, or Deucalion, Noah, and Peleg, et cetera.
It could have been another mysterious time, such as when the unicorn and griffin played, but other than coming down softly out of the sky -- nubibus et Deus ex machina -- their emergence as species in their
isolated natural habitats has no better answer than the story of creation itself. Mt. Olympus qua Mt. Olympus, as Zeus or the hand of God overcame the Titans, but not from chaos or the Big Bang, or Darwin from Galapagos. These animals are there in situ
naturae, duo et duo statimque, following from some fundamental genesis, or Biblical and classical reasons, not evolution.
An overwhelming guise of information may become nonsense
if it supplies the wrong answer, and it is not good to work too hard at stupid things, of course, but people have wondered between the chicken and the egg, and said that the chicken must have come first. Such an equation may resolve as one, close to the same
difference, but if it is about the order of operations, it probably is the chicken that came first. The primary place seems to solve the second more than the second solves the first, and the chicken seems to generate the egg more than the egg generates the
If what somebody says about it would come first, as much as the substance of the grain, it would have to be so for being already correct, since whatever is true in the case should be prior phenomena. Besides
the question of chicken and egg, some have asked about particle and cloud, and which came first? It may seem there is no cloud without at least a particle, and there are little tiny grains of sand and many particles outside clouds, yet the Rolling Stones said,
"get off my cloud" not get off my particle. Therefore, it seems the cloud came first, and clouds of sand as well as cloudbursts excel the particles for size, shape, and overall effect of atmosphere.
Besides the equivocations presumed by evolution, and the evidence of chicken and cloud, the theory is far out of scale with the actual record of human history, the most important species in the question. None of the biological processes which are presumed to have occurred could have occurred within the scale of recorded history anyway, so the fantastically exaggerated scene of big numbers is introduced to
justify what otherwise cannot be justified scientifically or historically. Since Darwinism has such serious problems with historical and cosmic facts, intentionally irresponsible and absurd numbers are used to disguise its curious way of dealing in metaphysics not natural empirical science.
anti-historical pseudo-science, that makes a mockery of correct understanding of potential and historiography, the proposed scale of evolutionary theory is all out of proportion with observable, testable, and verifiable facts. For the sake of an unverifiable,
unobservable, and untestable theory of biology, that is also mathematically and logically unsound, the honest scope of anthropology is distorted beyond measure. Yet the soul would be the light
and eye of the body, and of historiography too, if not the scientific method. And "if a citizen has destroyed the eye of one citizen, they shall destroy his eye also".-36
For example, speech is
mankind's most unique attribute, yet none of the world's most ancient scripts or glyphs, oldest alphabets, law codes or ancient rules about the lying tongue are anything similar in timescale to the so-called evolutionary model of human history. When the actual
records of the known ages of human history, communication, and habitation are compared with the years required for Darwinism, the difference in scope becomes absolutely preposterous. The power of speech appears suddenly, almost out of nowhere, and there
is a huge gap in evidence when it comes to language, which sets humans well apart from beasts and birds as animals.-37
Without language there would not be law, or any commitment to concepts or
meaning; and the Code of Ur-Nammu goes back only to 2100 BC and the Code of Hammurabi to 1800 BC. The oldest dispute about suicide that can be ascertained only dates to 2300 BC, and Egyptian funerary art may go back only 700 years more to 3000 BC. The oldest
Babylonian merchant and farmer's loans are from only 2000 BC, or a little way into the third millenia BC; and whatever alphabet script or glyphs for writing the notes, messages, pronouncements, and orders of repayment or retrieval, et cetera, have been
retained from only 1850 BC. Sumerian cuneiform is the oldest form of writing, and it is from only 3200 or 3000 BC.
In all probability,
even the oldest profession cannot go back much further than the oldest pastoral and agricultural loans, even for Darwin and the monkeys or lost shoes in the cave. Agriculture and farming, like shoes and the old verities of peaceful human occupation, and then
the records of criminal conspiracy, racketeering, bad government, the vice squad, and lies and deception cannot go much further beyond that. They also exaggerate absurdly the ages of various trees, which are an important historical and botanical resource,
of course, but none are more than a few thousand years old. Even with some of the lesser exaggerations included, none of the oldest trees on Earth are anywhere near the unnatural levels of chronology postulated in the Darwinianist metaphysic of arithmetic.
May a better sophistication and science of humanity (also as a theory of social construction) one day break free from the "blind guides who would strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel". Disguised at all times
with abysmal numbers, evolution is only a theory and an unscientific one at that. As Malcolm Muggeridge said, "I, myself, am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes
in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the credulity that it has."