7 errors and mathematical impossibility of Darwinism

"We cannot prove that a single species has ever changed."

Charles Darwin


"Darwin can keep the baboons, I'll take the angels."


Darwinism: lost in the cosmos and evolved from monkeys and garbage

Freud over cigars averred 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 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.


Congreve the old playwright confessed that he "could never look upon a monkey without very mortifying reflections." Likewise, at the root, the theory and market product of Darwin has really been one of complicating appearances: the theory and sales pitch that the monkey and the man are interrelated, so much, whether like family or fools, that the two can seem quite alike. Yet implicated and complicated as they may be, appearances can be deceiving. After all, even a fool deals in generalities, dolosus versatur in generalibus, that by appearance he may deceive, ut cum specie decipiat.


"Fair is foul and foul is fair" the witches from Forres heath echoed to MacBeth. "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, the sapient, ridiculous, or stupid, and the sometimes pacific-wise or menacing, making the faces of monkeys and men may run with some course of similarity. And marmousets, les petites gens, and 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, and howling monkeys in the trees, and are aware 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 him 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?


In any 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, 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 and pine cones?


For cause of some formality in the presentation, people do not really buy Darwinism 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 generations that are there between them: animals, vegetables, and fruits? How did the plant kingdom come to be and survive so fit, if it did not "evolve" as well? After all, the genetic code for biological life --- the genome at the simplest substrata --- is similar across all kinds. 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.


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 also? Why should the Chinese gooseberry, actinidia chinensis, and peaches and the mango have it so easy, when monkeys and men do not?


The heart given to know prudence and learning, with errors and folly, will have perceived that in these also there was labour: 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.


There was a Chinese restaurant waitress in Los Angeles, a pageant queen of obscurity, named Butterfly, sometimes called Cixi, who lived a quiet life on student loans 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, 9-11, BP and the central banks, the difference between jet fuel and thermite, the difference between the heavy nose of a cruise missile of titanium and steel, and the lighter thinner nose of a commercial airplane with only aluminium covering, and for sociology class the laws of probability, similarity, and association, et cetera. A digression perhaps, from as far away as Galapagos, but not for any purpose of confusion, that 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. The mind may sometimes float like a cloud, and wander 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.

Law 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, and a million miles away, as far distant as China, 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, bright oranges, and a waterfall in a rain forest, to what purpose are survival of the fittest, and ferocious contests among beasts? Does produce or vegetation exist for some reason other than harrowing stuggles, 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, terrible teeth, 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? 


Melior est finis quam principium
Melior est patiens arrogante


Better is the end than the beginning
Better is the patient one than the arrogant


Et quo vadis, civitatula animula?
Vagula, blandula, hospes comesque corporis 
Nunc quae abibis melancholia in loca?
Nec ut soles dabis iocos in necropoleis?

And 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 was a question once about how many grains of wheat are needed for a chessboard, if they are placed one grain 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. It 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 great big numbers and improbabiilities 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 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 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 scientific theory.


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. It has been a revelation in terms of explanation and funding: so many years and so many millenia of time, and why-predicated-of-what, and mysterious digital-zero resource money make it metaphysical, and a go-between ... between worlds. There is no speciation or identity without a formal cause, and when Darwinism speaks whimsically of various life forms from 300 million years ago, and so forth, it is engaging in illogical metaphysical practices rather than legitimate empirical science. 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 be representing some sort of deceptive conspiracy, at work in the market and the zeitgeist, if that is, in fact, what it is, and a resource method of false indoctrination into overarching materialism.



As Richard Dawkins once admitted, "we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." And 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", legitimized by the Hegelian theory of life, 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, codename for Giussepe Mazzini, a famous Italian Freemason, dovetails with the subversive ways of "scientific materialism", the old 19th century euphemism for Marxism, which includes heliocentrism and Darwinism as its two main signs of education and intellectual formation, et cetera.*



So consider then every potentially diabolical angle that could be hidden in the world of weird science or politics, where they would coincide with positive facts and the introduction of logic, and the tragically awful and dangerous story of Jack Parsons of JPL: NASA's own Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for instance, and a so-called founder of American rocketry. Rockets and monkeys exist, no doubt, and the monster scandal lifestyle of secret society satanic weirdness from London to California, of Crowleyan black magic proportions, where even HBO and Hollywood would fly to the Moon, and make a lot of money, of course. If anyone had evolved from a monkey-beast, sadly it could have been him or Crowley. There was a strange circle of acquaintance and people like vampires, and then there was an explosive old can of coffee, not expensive at first but criminal negligence perhaps, but not coffee. It was rather full of mercury fulminate, not chicory, and far out of place and dangerously unsafe in the kitchen, like strange ways of the devil and sudden murder in a forgotten time.

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 the blender either or the refrigerator. As a leading JPL scientist and secret society adept, Jack Parsons must have known that, yet somehow was involved in outrageous spiritual dangers, bizarre scandals, and stupidities of monkey-man proportions. Therefore, his likeness to an accepted rite troop of monkeys or another heliocentric protege of Aleister Crowley may be conceded, for tooth and claw and a load of garbage, even on legitimate scientific grounds; but evolution still cannot explain why essential properties subsist 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 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, 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 that both natural selection and cultivated breeding, or artificial selection, cause loss of genetic information.
Like the dog, the fish, the monkey, and the bat, without too much embarrrassment, "animal is the genus of man" and "the living or animated body is the genus of animal"; yet genus is not simply matter but something that is 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) 
In the details it must be because there is a principle of formal subsistence within numerical identity, as substance and seed relate to essential properties of being, becoming, and kind. A rose is a rose is a rose as it subsists. As it is, as it is what it is to be, there is a form there and more than a mere quantitative heap. Before there is a question of mutability, there always comes a matter of fine subsistence and immanence, since a program cannot arise spontaneously by random events, and whatever there is that makes an impression follows a primary and ultimate substance of form. 
"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, the seven basic errors and confusion persistent within Darwinism include serious 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, "it is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program".

Evolution is like a grimoire fantasy, an infernal dictionary of science fiction for somebody's entertainment, and "the theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless,"(6) except for posing more counter-factual background for the development of scientific materialism that 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 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 10's of zero's for fake trips to Mars.

As every one should know, at the end of the day, there are overall only three orders of cause within science --- 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, and Darwinism always ignores this important yet simple beginning fact stuck in the middle among so many things.


For example, there are no accidental causes in the cue without some efficient and coincidental causes first; but there are efficient causes without either accidental or coincidental ones. In short, it is plain that an authentically random process that is unneccessary by nature and proceeds by mere accidental or coincidental causes cannot build codes according to hoyle and repeat them. It is an oxymoronic theory.


As Richard Dawkins himself once said 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."


And the genetic code obviously is of an effective order that is not merely accidental or coincidental. The clear fact of the irreducible complexity of the living cell, for example, remains mathematically and logically 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 many times over with degrees of "haecceitas" that it is logically and mathematically impossible that it also would correspond with the creature in question by some way of mere random luck. Following from an order of efficient and biological cause, fortune cookie already knows 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. Wonderful little birds for a charm of circulation sometimes, and the evidence appears 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. 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. 


If there had been intermediate forms, they would not have been the fit ones of the species anyway. They would have been defective, for sure. 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. Like Saturn being in two different places at the same time, it cannot be done for the arrangement in space of cause and effect.

Birds have a lung unlike any other land dwelling species. The avian lung is biologically cloistered, 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) Bird wings are another example of the steep improbabilities of 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 range across the cosmos, out of nine numbers and zero, there follow all the cell phone numbers in all the big cities. If someone in one of them has lost his cell phone at home, and has no idea where it could be, he could find it by calling it from another phone. The number called is an efficient cause of the ringing that leads directly to the one cell phone that has been lost. When the cell rings and is discovered, it is not by random chance, since the number called is essential to the matter and goes to that one with specific efficiency. 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 are that if someone who is, in fact, 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, that 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 phone was asked to find it by calling the number, only by guessing, the odds that he could dial the right number by chance are virtually and scientifically nil. The odds are impossible that someone who did not know the number of the lost cell phone could call it at random and discover it.


In the same way by 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 called mathematically impossible.

The complexity of even moderate proteins is far beyond the mathematical level of random chance, where the odds of one moderate protein forming by random chance is 1 in 10^950, which alone refutes Darwinism. This is beyond impossible  ... times impossible ... times impossible ... times impossible ... etc., and the principle of order in the motive origin of Darwinism is random chance, which is an oxymoronic theory in the first place, and mathematically impossible even in the case of one moderate protein, let alone the living cell itself. In so many ways "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."(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 in fascination with the game regard as "virtually infinite". It becomes a "numberless" boundary, even with only an average of 30 moves (or 60 ply) per game. It goes 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 again is far less than the odds against forming one moderate protein 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)" "... life cannot have had a random beginning ... 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 divines well in regard to the truth", he "will also be able to divine well in regard to probabilities"(12); and the seven main postulates of Darwinism are non sequitors besides, which makes them unscientific, of course, 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 surprising seed.

4. The metazoans, many-celled organisms, are spontaneously developed from protozoans, the single-celled organisms.

5. The invertebrates are phylogenetically interrelated.

6. The vertebrates are phylogenetically interrelated with the invertebrates.

7. The vertebrates are phylogenetically interrelated.


Adduced without reasonable evidence in a way similar to heliocentrism, these brain poor postulates remain arbitrary and unscientific, and rely for explanation on a superficial game of deception to conceal basic errors with big numbers and mechanistic occult "actions-at-a-distance". There was one magic trick, then the other, for there is the universal chaos of the Copernican dilemma on one hand, and then the Darwinian problem of excelling creation by violence, on the other --- and Darwinism, in its sorts, also lacks a center and proper geometry. 

How would anything that is not in some way correct in terms of geometry actually exist or ever occur in space anyway? Socrates thought that mankind has his name from his way of looking up. "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 or look up 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'."(13)

And in Darwinism, there is no vertical only horizontal, which does not make good sense for a whole system of experience except "Flatland", and the numbers are much too big there and absurd for reasonable credibility. 

It is obvious how the big numbers of Darwinism go like a team in translation from the jungle and swamp to Big Bang Cosmology, and then around the bend to the globalist central banks, which have exaggerated the size of the cosmos by about 95%, and the age at least as much, and would also like to keep trillions and billions in metaphysical digital debt-money over the world of poor suckers, sometimes also called nations for playtime.

Real and honest science, however, does not need 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, there is only horizontal, for instance, and would demonstrate that by showing how flat an area is for snakes, it would be a conclusion granted by prejudice of quantity taken only in one regard, but not by true facts. Even in isolation, true facts rather must be whole, since they connect to other true facts continuously, as much as the penguin does not contradict the scorpion 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 taken in one way would 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, confusing coincidental relationships with causes.


For instance, if it is raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore, it is raining.

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, therefore, the more simple gave rise to the more complex. In a similar way, wisdom, understanding, and intelligence among men tends to increase with age and experience. Like jugglers, their skill advances with practice from more simple to complex, which requires time, and more time. Gradually they advance from more simple to complex in their lives, therefore, likewise, man has evolved and progressed from the amoeba and the monkey. Besides false analogies and strange dusty bones, the Darwinian theory of evolution is there to reason from the conclusion back to the premise, also by dint of invention with increasing the numbers of years beyond absurdity.


However, Duns Scotus, a not-so-distant relic of the medieval past, with a little mathematics and logic, could correct and charitably emend the overgrown chapter of faults of Darwin, Dawkins, and the Department of Evolution. Math is not only about big numbers but also the order of operations, and biology is supposed to be a science after all, not a superstition. It cannot separate itself from mathematics and logic, and chaos as chaos cannot provide a source code for the 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, and "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."(14) Even with the greatest excellence, a thing or a creature will remain what it is --- conatus in quale quid --- as much as the circle must come back around.


And sadly, 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, 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 has never been shown to add new information or increase genetic complexity. As a "leopard cannot change its spots," anything like a deer that survives does not change species because it survived for excellence. Darwin can lead blue ribbon cows to water but he cannot turn them into pilot whales by competitons for first place. The best cattle remain cattle for all the excellence, and they say, "don't drive black cattle in the dark."


"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 pronounces only one word and one syllable at a time.(15)


The first Darwinian postulate that nonliving matter spontaneously produced living matter at biogenesis has never been proven. The theory of evolution is 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, herein lies hidden again a recessed form of nature and sun worship, where pantheism and unceasing change turn the wheeel of life. The sun is reckoned like a god, yet it did not create the Earth, giving it form and its atmosphere. The sun by itself 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 the richness of sunlight or lightning strikes alone.


Matter by itself is only matter, a congeries of atoms and molecules indeterminate as to any definite figure or end. The spatial distribution and delineation of forms that is seen retained in substance cannot be explained by the material dimension alone. Living biological creatures cannot ultimately derive the breath that they have and their sustainable forms, and spatial patterns of subsistence, only from matter qua matter.

An apple is a little bit more than an apple, and there is not a percentage of carbon that is enough by itself to bring something to life, or to put an expression in things. 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 a chess game, or animal cookies, the form has to be cut into the material and out of it fot it to exist as it is.

The golden ratio has been seen rising in whirlwinds and sea shells, but the ratios by themselves do not make or break the forms 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 out a complete relation and form in reality.


Therefore, as much as fortune cookies, science should know that atoms by themselves do not create forms. 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. Quantum theory and relativity cannot explain geometry and trigonometry any better than they already explain themselves, by self-evident principles and logic. 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", according to the conformity to an exemplar.(16) There simply must also be a formal cause for the things we see. Immanence, therfore, is something more than atomic, and either things people see have been made that way formally from eternity, or they have been impressed and affected by some qualification of existential design.

If a scientist or doctor asks a question about the human species, he also aks a question about the human form, not just the 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 "cracking necks and cashing checks", to be a good one; and the reality of many forms contradicts all of Darwinism, which must go only according to nominalist materialism, and the mechanism of atomic theory.

Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum. For science to weep over its own faults "is to make less the depth of grief", but bad books, bone weariness, and too much paperwork can be more pain to the living than crying. Dante and Virgil saw the wheel of life too, and over a door to Hell it says, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

"... 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."



Reality at times can be difficult to face, especially between a rock and a hard place, and 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?"(17) 

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 of 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. 

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 contiunally, 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", the Greek word for indivisible, and he theorized that atoms were specific to the material which they composed, and also 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. Therefore, Democritus would say that changes in matter were a result of dissociations or combinations of the atoms as they moved throughout 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.


If elements may combine in simple proportions to form compounds, as if a few or more distinct atoms of one were in combination with a small number of atoms of another, then there is still something more to explain the form and nature that obtains in the composite. As much as mere quantity cannot give rise to consciousness, neither can the details of atomic theory in various percentages and chains of letters give full description to living forms. Atomic theory and its chains of letters cannot explain the circulation and function of warm blood, for example, any better than it can explain geometry or trigonometry.

For all the research and money, 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 hidden in the picture of things.(18) 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 the interpretation of signs. Understanding art requires the cognitive interpretation of symbols, and a knowledgeable eye or 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",(19) and the human face can weigh things like a secret balance, where "perfection comes about little by little (para mikron) through many numbers".(20) At times it could even be interpreted as a little cloud of elevation, a sign concealed and super-imposed in many other things, and sometimes it can have a remarkable halo effect due to the perfection associated with angels.

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, and "the friends of this world are as shiplights in the stormiest nights,"(21) and Darwinism cannot explain the interconnected math of centered calmness, harmony, peace, and dignity in the living face of an old friend.

Gertrude Stein said that "everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense". For trivial pursuit then, 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%) 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.

As much as they are elements too, sounds by themselves or chicken scratch on paper do not make words or names. Adding these other chemical elements and molecules up 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 of medicine or a chemist, and it may not even get a cup of coffee if somebody can sing it and add entertainment personality.



If one takes a can of sardines, or as many of them as there are and 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 ooze 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 billions or thousands of times with millions of cans of sardines, and nobody from the Department of Agriculture or Department of Health would ever 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 letting them sit in the sun. Life 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.


Rather, 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 for subsistence and replication. A DNA molecule with e coli information on it added to the sardines would bring a whole bag of tricks and spring 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 breathless and inanimate 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 matter, time, and energy 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 Darwin would say that "matter plus time plus energy equals the cell", but this 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 no egg or shell without its code and 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. So it would follow that it is unlikely if not impossible that a genetic code like that, as complicated as it is, yet so much in common, 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 again 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 ... since it only happened once, 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 or wise to expect it to happen again, the more one looks at it, also, because it was simply unnecessary, as all random things are. Disconnected as it was, there was no necessity for it to happen from anywhere in the first place, and especially against such precipitous odds. "The doctrine of evolution explains that nothing produced something from nothing"(22); and reason knows that it was basically impossible the first time; therefore, there is no need for it to happen a second time now that life is this way. For one thing that is impossible like that to happen once 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 it were as fun as torture, it has remained a theory set against astronomical odds, occurring only once by random chance in the beginning, and it cannot be repeated; but the 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 only is another excuse for a system of philosophical preference of mechanistic interpretations and godless delusion. Abyssum abyssi invocat.


As much as it is mechanistic, Darwinism also becomes semiotically odd, since the term "beginning" implies and intuits order. "Primordalis" and "exordium", for example, not to mention arkhein and arkhe*, are venerable words for the beginning, and they all rely on the concept of order to express their meaning. They agree in sense that the information had to be programmed into the living things from the beginning, that the first step even forms an orderly queue of one, which means walking did not "evolve", merely because walkers experience genesis, growth, and nutrition, but rather they were created. "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."(23) 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 has been reduced and degraded 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.

Many people could believe that Ann Coulter making her rounds may be unusual, a little bit different perhaps and out of the ordinary, but proofs by analogy --- without a more definite genetic algorithm --- to say, therefore, that she is also related to Africa by the giraffe, because of the way she looks, shall always be insufficient and only beg the question "why"? 

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? It must be that they all have some common ancestor in the fish.

Darwinism's method of proof by anterior equivocation, 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 equivocal and univocal predication, and "haecceitas", it also could illustrate some of the limits of proof by analogy, and the fallacy of an infinite regress, and the fallacy of a circle of equal causes.


And "haecceitas" helps explain how forms and subsistent individual identities may exist within species and genera. For example, if Ann Coulter and the giraffe have two eyes, two ears, a long neck and nose, funny lips and somewhat similar circulatory and nervous systems for being warm blooded, and like to eat leafy salads and look at trees, that does not necessarily mean that Ann Coulter and the giraffe have evolved from some long lost common ancestor. No, no, not at all, rather the what is this between them are still two separate things.


The specific cases directly involved and all the littlest species of their antecedent biological generations can be perfectly exclusive of each other, yet the giraffe and Ms. Coulter remain related only by generic properties of habitat, range, and proof by analogy. So it goes for the entire kingdom Animalia with its clade Mammalia and the people in New York City. Yet this does not mean that they are related one to another with generational "haecceitas", with 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.


Dolosus versatur in generalibus ut cum specie decipiat.


It is the same thing with doubles and look-alikes and spies hiding by the road. They are not necessarily related like actual family or by a family tree --- that is to say phylogenetically --- simply because of appearance. Appearances can be deceiving. Superficiebus deceptiones ducantur, et cetera, and so it goes. 


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 from a cup of coffee, but this is not true. Impossible again, as much as one cannot get Wimbledon from a tennis ball, 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, and bear claws in a bakery.

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 in 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 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."(24) 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 stumped.

As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner has 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 Darwinism tends to its own darkness and loss, disallowing the better understanding of the principle of numerical identity, as it relates to essential properties. 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; and such a process of development has never been observed or replicated. Whenever random changes are introduced into a code, they disrupt the sequence and even render it useless. If evolution was not so technically random from the shadows, it would be more like the tares in the parable of wheat and tares. Less than something good, not even truly random but a question of alienating design, it becomes a bad seed for a needle, since it obviously is wrong: and a bad seed is a bad seed is a bad seed, like a rose is a rose is a rose. And a crown of thorns is a crown of thorns.


And so it goes, et cetera, yet every seed and every vision would have some purpose. There must be an end as much as there must be teleology. 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 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" 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, it is further supposed without any practical proof that "evolutionary pressures allowed for emerging organisms to develop more sensitive and more reliable vision;" and they say that "around 500 million years ago, many organisms had developed something that resembled the cone cells found in our eyes."


“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.”
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 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,” Lamb said.
From that point, the vertebrate eye became refined and specialized by various organisms, including fish, reptiles and mammals.
“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.(25)
Yet if there is any virtue or marvel in nature, other than hearing, which could correspond at once to a rank of immediate or even instantaneous dynamism, with focus, it would have to be the gift of sight. "Seeing is believing". Sometimes even at first sight, with clear vision, one can see in an instant; and, like hearing, that can come as close to virtually instantaneous 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."(26)

And the gift of sight operates in a system where the brain is totally insulated from light, of course, yet from mysterious design seers may observe a luminous, bright world out of this pitch darkness. Where it is completely dark inside and no light reaches, the center of vision that sight represents is never touched, and may be one of the darkest places you could imagine. Yet the visible images formed and magnified to it from the camera of the eye are so sharp and distinct that even the best technology of the 21st century cannot copy or surpass it.(27)


If anybody believes in "God", or the power of an infinite being, he should not believe in Darwinism, because action or motion that comes directly from God or an infinite power is always instantaneous, and does not need any divisible parts or stages of development. Even as they process in special ways, God's actions are unique and not gradual within Himself or for others. He never went to school to graduate and learn how to be who He is or experience what He knows. Rather to go by steps of development, much less with "a little bit of luck", as in evolution, does not fit ontologically at all with the category of infinite motion, which would characterize an infinite mover.


When the Gospel says "with God all things are possible", "apud Deum autem omnia possibilia sunt", it would not mean that all things are appropriate to God, or that God would or could do things that are repugnant to his nature and way of being. Divinity school says that He is supernatural, unique, and all-powerful, yet this only means that with God all reasonable hope among men of good will is warranted by grace; and even so, the truth admits that some things remain impossible to God, as they would also be inappropriate and wrong to his supernatural, intelligent, and infinite condition of eternal life, et cetera.


How natural things grow and develop is radically different from how an infinite power would create. The theory of Darwinian evolution is not appropriate at all to instantaneous acts 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, create species by a biological mechanism of stages, acting gradually as in evolution; and evolution itself, by its own terms, is not considered something transcendent or instantaneous anyway, but gradual, competitive, and ephemeral. Darwinian evolution would develop and act only on a strictly mechanistic and natural plane, and the hypothetical monkey to man process is completely out of accord with an infinite or instantaneous mover.


Gradually they say, "with a little bit of luck, and a little more luck", and so on with great big numbers for a throne; and the theory of blind chance does not represent an instantaneous or infinite motion but always a natural series only. Evolving creatures and so forth cannot act instantaneously even to survive. 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 stuck there between his two eyes.


The circle comes back, and an infinite and instantaneous mover like God is not stopped from acting and manifesting on the natural plane. Through the potential divisibilty of signs, it goes without saying, revelation and wonders are possible, but infinite acts are not natural. They are perfectly instantaneous, which is very uncommon, and not in sequence from divisible substance 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 extrinsic results that play out 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 indivisible fits with an order of absolute sameness and divinity, not merely natural acts of survival. Selections by this or that opportunity to survive and mutability for creatures seeking an advantage are not the same. Whatever is postulated of mutability and grades up or down in natural creatures is not appropriately or logically postulated of an infinite mover. The Biblical account of creation is logical this way, where the primordial agency of the soup postulated by Darwinism is not. It is so difficult for logic to find a substitute for an infinite being or mover that whatever other resource would compare appears nonsensical and absurd, and something a little too finite.


The problems of the fossil record disagree 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 during he 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."(28) "The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate the expectation of finely graded changes over time".(29) 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.(30) These discoveries completely throw off the 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 is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years."(31) 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.(32) "When 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."(33) And "the Carbon-14 contents of the shells of the snails of Melanoides tuberculatus living today in artesian springs in southern Nevada indicate an apparent age of 27,000 years."(34)



In addition, the field evidence is overwhelming 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 narratives like the destruction of Atlantis. 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."(35) This very stumbling block comes with a fatal stroke right from the Cambrian explosion.


The main taxa such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and 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 crawling on the floor in "The Ninth Configuration", Darwinism would put on airs and have people's noses in the dirt, and tend to keep them there in a bizarre circle, following a bad line and hook into the abyss.


The first order of magnitude in a lving species is in the nature and kind, not in its concurrence with time. The magnitude of speciation is impressed in the primary circle of the type, detail, and the quality before it is in the time. The essential cause is before the coincidental or accidental. The accumulation of time by a species does not have priority over inherent characterisics from within its speciation in nature and kind. The priority is what and how, 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 full circle.


Even in chronology, quality comes before quantity, and the logic and order of cause and effect in the the steps involved in a process like olives and olive oil is of greater weight than the dim accumulation of days after days, weeks after weeks, and years after years, etc. And there simply are situations where one cannot get this from that, no matter how much time there would be and how absurd and unfathomable the numbers.


For instance, the first order of magnitude in blue jays and cardinals is that they are what they are: finite creatures in every circle of instantiation, and they naturally follow after the seed of their kind, not how many years they have been in existence. Even for humans, sometimes it does not matter what day of the week or year it is, and any one of these birds is the same thing no matter what time it is in occurrence. Time qua time is only quantity of minutes and seconds around the clock, and quantity alone does not make quality. The little creatures of the forest are not infinite obviously, but they remain as they are, with creaturely habits and degrees of sameness, by simple continuations in the seedline.


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 about the origin of species that is wrapped up first in millenia after millenia. A time scale of big numbers of total absurdity would take place over the simple aim and form of the creature's life. But this is out of order, since the accidental and coincidental everywhere depend on the essential. When the nest is built, it is from the creature working within the essence of its nature, by a principle of native intuition that contradicts evolutionary theory --- because it revolves not from a process that is dependent on the development of centuries or even millenia. Rather it manifests from within the immediate genesis and lifespan of the creature.


Intuition, 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."(36) Not learned is not evolved, and pelicans do not go to school to learn how to evolve and be pelicans, of course. "Likewise bees make honeycombs by nature, not by learning. Spiders also make their fine work of lace spontaneously."(37)


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 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 days of Atlantis, Deucalion, Noah, and Peleg. It could have been another mysterious time, but other than coming down softly out of the sky --- clouds and Deus ex machina --- there emergence as species in their isolated natural habitat has no better answer than the story of creation itself --- Mt. Olympus qua Mt. Olympus, Zeus or the hand of God, 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. 


Besides the equivocations presumed by evolution, the theory is way out of scale with the actual record of human history. They intentionally use huge irresponsible numbers to disguise the fact that they are dealing in metaphysics not natural empirical science. None of the biological processes which they presume have occurred nor could be occurring within the scale of recorded history anyway, so they introduce a fantastically exaggerated scene of big numbers to justify what otherwise cannot be justified scientifically or historically.

Darwinism is ahistorical and soulless. The soul is the light and eye of the body and of history too. "If a citizen has destroyed the eye of one citizen, they shall destroy his eye".(38) An anti-historical pseudo-science, 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, they distort the honest scope of anthropology beyond measure.

For example, the known ages of none of the world's ancient scripts, oldest alphabets, law codes, or cities are anything similar in scale to the so-called evolutionary model of human history. When the actual and honest records of the ages of human history and habitation are compared with the numbers of years required for Darwinism to be possible, if it were, the differences in scope become preposterous. 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 for writing the notes, special messages, pronouncements, and orders of repayment or retrieval have been retained from only from 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 that much further beyond pastoral and agricultural loans, even for Darwin and the monkeys. The records of criminal conspiracy, racketeering, bad government, the vice squad, and lies and deception cannot go much further beyond that. Disguised at all times with abysmally false big numbers, they also exaggerate absurdly the ages of various trees, which are an important 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 involved in the Darwinist metaphysic of arithmetic. 

May a better science of humanity one day please break free from the monkey dogs and the bats, and "blind guides who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel: duces caeci, excolantes culicem autem camelum gluttientes".(39) 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's 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."