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 strike him in the face. Suddenly too, it may seem, and from what is false anything follows. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet.
The madness of liberalism is unending. Monkeys and cats, and all labor of the mouth, but the soul shall not be filled. How, how, how, how such chopped logic brings the strange portal, and then the left-hand path. By dismal Cocytus, the inscription
over a door to Hell reads "abandon all hope, ye who enter here."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
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, yet "something unknown is doing we do not know what". Comedy, therefore, should not be the only hope for epistemic justification, and to put to
rest an endless supply of reasons.
"To a green thought
in a green shade", 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 quite effective, 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.
Scilicet istimodi facturam, surely of that sort it is made, the Darwinian synthesis of things, that may
seem quite alike, 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 with the current conception
of biology. A peculiar enthymeme of nature then, 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, in theory.
Congreve the old playwright, for example, confessed that he "could never look upon a monkey without very mortifying reflections." 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 appearances he may deceive, ut cum specie decipiat.
"Fair is foul and foul is fair" the witches from Forres heath echoed to MacBeth. To
face a difficult reality sometimes, no doubt, can be painful, if not stupid, tempting, or menacing, especially between a rock, a cauldron, and a hard place.
For 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.
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?
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 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 and 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, 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. 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.
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?
The heart given to
know prudence and learning, with errors and folly, will have perceived that in these 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.
There was a Chinese restaurant waitress in Los Angeles, a pageant piano queen of obscurity, named Butterfly, sometimes called Cixi, or Buttercup, 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, like 9-11, BP, corexit, 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.
"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:
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 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? 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?
If the privilege of absurdity should maintain its value, the end of any transaction should be as good as the beginning, and patience should yet retain its returning balance and strength better than arrogance.
Melior 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 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 once was another question about the purpose of life and how many grains of wheat are needed for a chessboard. If 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 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 scientific
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 and a go-between ... between worlds. Yet there is no speciation or identity
without a formal cause.
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, 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 market and the zeitgeist, if that is, in fact, what it is, and a resource method of false indoctrination into overarching materialism and madness. 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. 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, legitimized 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,
codename 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.
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. A 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, 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, to tell a lot of lies, of course.
things would coincide with positive facts and the introduction of logic, however, 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, 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 the blender either or the refrigerator.
As a leading JPL scientist and secret society adept, Jack Parsons must have known that, and the shampoo; yet somehow for the involvement in outrageous spiritual dangers of California, bizarre scandals, and stupidities of monkey-man proportions, he lost
it and went ape.
"So it goes", Billy Pilgrim would say. Beauty and the beast without the beauty, therefore, his likeness
to a troop of accepted rite monkeys or goats, or just another heliocentric protege of wicked 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 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 both natural selection
and cultivated breeding, or artificial selection, cause loss of genetic information.
Like 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 it is what it is to
be, 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 environment of 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, 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 and 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 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. It 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.
would be like throwing a dice a thousand times and getting a six every single time. It is out of the question."
If the Devil
is in the details, so too the biochemistry, and the genetic code obviously is 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 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. Wonderful little birds go tweet tweet for charm of circulation sometimes, and the circulation of chance
is also prepared. Tweety tweet, and the evidence appears naturally from the irreducible and immediate complexity of the living cell.
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. 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,
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 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 fire-breathing dragons out of nine
numbers 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 that 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 essential and goes to that one with specific efficiency in the matter.
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 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 way created 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 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, is far beyond the level of random chance.
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, 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 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 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 Such a gift 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
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, 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.
The vertebrates are phylogenetically interrelated with the invertebrates.
7. 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. Relyng 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, geometry never tires and it never sleeps, and it 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
for an effective path to carry through adversity, 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, "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 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 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 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 translation from jungle or swamp, to 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, and would also
like to keep trillions and trillions and billions 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.
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
If one says there is no substantive vertical, for instance, 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, therefore, 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 taken in one way from the petri dish 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 essential causes.
For instance, we say 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, 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 false analogies with strange dusty bones, and increaing 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. It 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.
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, even if very cryptic, 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. Darwin can lead blue ribbon cows and bambi to water, but he cannot turn them into pilot whales 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.
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
The first 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, it seems like it could be a devotion, or 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 from the richness
of sunlight or lightning strikes alone.
Matter by itself is only matter, a congeries of elemental atoms perhaps and molecules,
indeterminate as to any definite figure or end. Without the spatial distribution and delineation of forms retained in substance, things cannot have direction. Living biological creatures cannot derive the breath that they have and their sustainable forms,
and spatial patterns of subsistence, only from matter qua matter. Ultimately the material dimension alone needs something more.
An apple is an apple and a little bit more than an apple, since it
is part of so many relations, yet there is not a percentage of carbon that is enough by itself to bring something to life. 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 a chess game, the form has to be cut into the material and out of it fot it to exist as it is.
is, the golden ratio is over and in thigs, for example, and has been seen rising in whirlwinds and sea shells, 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 out 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. 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, 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 from eternity, or 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 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. The reality of so many forms 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", the Greek word for indivisible, 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.
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.
If elements 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 and structure of mathematics. There is still something more than atoms to explain the form and nature that obtain in
the surface composite. As much as mere quantity cannot give rise to consciousness, neither can the 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 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.-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 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.
As much as they are in the elements too,
sounds by themselves or chicken scratch on paper do not make words or names. Adding 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 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 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 of sardines, 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 and letting them sit in
the sun. Life is a probability 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.
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 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 no 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. 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 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, 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 which is so impossible to happen twice.
And so, for an abysmal recitation of science, if fun as torture, it has remained a theory set against astronomical odds. 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 only is another excuse for a dungeon system of philosophical preferences for mechanistic interpretations
and godless delusion. Abyssum abyssi invocat.
As much as it is mechanistic, Darwinism is also semiotically odd, since the term
beginning intutively implies order. "Primordalis" and "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, 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 was 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."-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 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
or from another planet.
Sober physicists don't 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, 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, it must be that they all have some common ancestor in the fish.
Darwinism's method of proof by anterior equivocation 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 equivocal and "haecceitas", and univocal predication, 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.
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 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. No, no, not at all, rather the what-is-this between them still proceeds in two separate directions among
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 of habitat, range, and proof by analogy. 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.
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 of appearance.
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 from a cup of coffee, but this is not true. Rather impossible again, as much as one cannot get Wimbledon from a tennis ball either, 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.
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
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 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.
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 an accident any more, where the confusion is an alienating design, it becomes a
bad seed, 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, and
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 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" 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."
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, 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 soup, came
on the scene around 500 million years ago, with a set of “camera-style” eyes that looked very much like our own.
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, from that
point, the vertebrate eye became refined and specialized by various organisms, including fish, reptiles and mammals.
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 or even instantaneous dynamism, 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; and, like hearing, the experience and recollection 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."-24
The many sophisticated features of an organ of such extreme perfection and complication, like the human or hawk 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, yet from mysterious design seers may observe a luminous 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 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, because action or motion from God or an indivisible infinite power is always instantaneous, and does not need any stages of development in itself. Even as they proceed in special ways, in relation to creation, God's actions
are unique and not gradual within Himself. Whatever the purposes involved for others, He never went to school to graduate and learn how to 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, 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 that are repugnant to his own nature and way of being, et cetera.
Divinity school says, as well as fortune cookie, that He 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 Supreme Being. 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.
How natural things grow and develop is radically different from how an infinite power would
create. 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 or instantaneous anyway, but 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 are not in accordance with an infinite or instantaneous mover. The theory of blind chance in a series does not represent an instantaneous or infinite motion, of course, but always
at best 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 great big numbers for a throne at the parade 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 stuck there between his two eyes.
The circle and the parade come back around, and an infinite, indivisible,
and instantaneous mover like God is not stopped 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 are not natural. They
are perfectly instantaneous, which is very uncommon to present experience. Not in a 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 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, and experience an advantage in things, and the range of mutability among creatures are not always the same. There is the introduction of difference among many things, and
whatever is postulated of mutability 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 for logic to find a substitute resource for what makes the best sense that an infinite being or mover that would compare with something
a little too finite, even in one or two steps of the forgotten past, appears nonsensical and absurd for the comparison.
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, 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
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."-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
"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."-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 narratives 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 the Sci-Fi channel, the first order of magnitude in a lving species is in the nature and kind anyway, not in its concurrence with time. The magnitude
of speciation impressed in the primary circle of the type provides detail and quality before it is a question of time.
It should not be too difficult to see that the essential cause of numerical
identity is in principle before the coincidental or accidental. Therefore, the accumulation of time by a species does not have priority over inherent characterisics 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 olive oil full circle.
Even in chronology, quality comes before quantity; and the logic and order of cause and effect, involved in the the steps in a process
like olives and olive oil, for example, is of greater weight than the dimmest accumulation of many days, weeks, and 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
For instance, if the first order of magnitude in blue jays and cardinals is not that they are what 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 these 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, 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, 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 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 not from a process dependent on the development of centuries or even millenia. Rather it manifests from within the immediate genesis and lifespan of the creature.
Intuition as 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 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 perhaps, and 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 -- there emergence as species in their isolated natural habitat 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.
Besides the equivocations presumed by evolution, 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.
An 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
example, speech is mankind's most unique attribute, yet none of the world's most ancient scripts, oldest alphabets, law codes, or cities 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, 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 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. 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 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 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'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."