I. SCIENCE L. Summary And Criticism Of The Scientific Explanation For The Origin Of Man: Bangolution Debunked

We have traveled a significant distance in attempting to understand Science’s explanation for the origin of Man. Along the way we have had to stop and examine issues, like the meaning of “scientific consensus”, and we have found it to be a democracy; we have had to take an at least cursory visit to the dating methods used by science, leaving that place unsure of any dates earlier than the written record, or beyond 5,000 years; we have learned a bit about how scientists measure distance in space, and about the leaps of faith this science asks us to make about figures and estimates often differing by millions, if not billions of years; we have examined how Science explains the origin of Life, and seen it to be less convincing than established myths and legends; we have taken up “theory” itself and found it masquerading as science, and we have seen science peddle metaphysics as practical science; we have made important distinctions between practical and theoretical science, and between “micro” and “macro” Evolution; we have examined the fossil records that are supposed evidences of “Intermediate Men” and found them unimpressive; and last but among even other things, we have examined much purported evidence but nevertheless been unable thereby to identify any convincing proof for the Theory of Evolution. Now that, my dear readers, is  a sentence…

With the new evidence now at hand, soon the teaching of Evolution in public schools will need to be challenged. A coordinated effort that demands Evolutionists stand and justify their claims just might succeed this time. The “Monkey Trials” were very close, a rematch, in homage to William Jennings Bryan, is certainly in order.

Let us also in fairness state our shortcomings. We have not dug to any real depth into the bowels of many of the more microscopic aspects of Evolution, or the mathematical intricacies of the Big Bang. We have taken only a layman researcher’s approach, one holistic in theory and general outlook, but purposefully reductionist in method. We have examined primarily only images, and sometimes only images of images to draw our conclusions, and for this at any moment we should expect a swift Platonic kick to our backsides. We have not touched the fossils, looked at the measuring meters or protista, nor even worked the machines used for dating or measuring distance. We have not been to all these places where skulls were found, to “smell the air” of our supposed human descent first hand, nor have we sat in the command seat while we date the distance Andromeda is from us. We might not have all our information up to date, and we have been critical all the way through our explanations.

But in defense we only wanted one thing out of all of this, that being to understand Science’s origin of Man. As compensation for my lack of mastery over the more intricate and specialized regions of the Big Bang and Evolution, I have tried to offer in exchange complete and full honesty in presentation, real sincerity of purpose, and to be unbiased throughout, as I will for anything undertaken by me, the pursuit of Truth being the reason I write at all. I have not tried to make friends nor enemies, have welcomed criticism nonetheless, and will stand corrected in the face of any verifiable evidence contrary to anything claimed herein.

Scientists And Their Pretenders

Having said all this, and so qualified our results, what is our conclusion? Is Evolution true? Is the Big Bang right?

Let’s start with the Bang, or Kaboom Theory. Before I begin, I want to confess that, to my chagrin, we have come all this way to have to admit that Science as currently practiced should not be in the business of searching for ultimate origins at all, let alone of the universe or of Man. A little thought is enough to realize that the search for human origin is a non-scientific enterprise, in that the quest for beginnings is more properly the realm of the metaphysicians and historians, as well as, on occasion, those dedicated and sincere individuals who may or may not be scientific theorists, but whose inquiries and searches have produced benefits to humanity in the process.

As example of the latter, we could cite Benjamin Franklin, almost all his science successful, almost all his inventions beneficial, and clearly, one of the most complete men ever to exist on the planet, eccentricities included. Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Thomas Davenport, who really invented the motor, and Franklin, were all, we could say, accidental scientists, their revelations coming as much from a general wisdom as from any acquired knowledge or training. It was a combination of their dedicated desire and – I dare say, of all things believe it or not – their virtue and morality, that allowed them to peer into or make contact with the Infinite. By being sincere, by being focused, they were aided, and had ideas revealed to them.

That Franklin might have violated 1 or 6 of his own virtues throughout his long life I will concede, but anyone who has spent any amount of time at all studying the greatest sages and wisest thinkers knows most of them had their eccentricities; in fact, I would gamble that every single one of them had some quirk or habit or strange mannerism of some kind.

Some would say cleverly here that these men are hypocrites then, in apparent violation of their own rules. This is a good question and stands for many like it so I will answer presently.

I think this answer is best expressed using three examples.

1.The first is an argument from degree. These apparent hypocrites are not because, while they might violate their own rules time to time, those indiscretions never harm another person in any way, and never are they used to take or damage what belongs to someone else. They are not malicious. Why it is not hypocrisy, or at worst a justified or justifiable inconsistency, will become apparent as we continue the list.

2. The second is an argument from application. In short it can be said that for such advanced and authentic types the standard rules no longer apply. In many ways these orders of virtue, the lists or commandments meant to guide behavior, are directed specifically to the non-virtuous. Once a person knows what virtue is – and so has much more than less become a righteous, religious, virtuous being – those rules no longer really apply. At that point in his development the wise one, now also the the just one and the virtuous one, begins to focus on higher horizons, during which expeditions some of the old rules meant for the uninitiated no longer carry, for him, any significance. So the guru can smoke cigarettes with joy, and never seem addicted; the priest can drink his booze with everybody else, but never become dependent on the alcohol, the Sufi smoke his hashish and still perform his tasks; the Master curse and spit and go without bathing for days.

3. Finally, the third is an argument from demonstration. This type of apparent hypocrisy is probably, for these wisest of sages, a means of setting an example. Not just to demonstrate their being human like everyone else, but also to show that it is possible to be human and do human things and still lead a virtuous life. Jesus got angry and threw tables and stuff around, many a teacher has scolded and even smacked his student, and the greatest thinkers will always partake of whatever you offer. It is to show the goodness where everyone else sees vice.

Probably some combination of these account for the eccentricities and apparent hypocrisies of the wise.

A theoretical tree which brings no or few fruits is just an ornamental. It might even look good, to all presentation appear healthy, but if it supposed to be a fruitful tree and produces nothing it is either sick, diseased, or somehow stunted, and thereby sterile, unfruitful, and likely barren. Possibly with undivided care and attention these types of theoretical trees can be saved, but whether they are worth the time and resources needed to nurture them back to health must sooner or later be addressed. Some of these theories are so far gone their spot in the field is better taken by healthier and more productive varieties.

Good teachers, like good theories, perhaps even like good sages, might be born and not made, something we will discuss further as we move on.

So back to our immediate subject, professional versus lay scientists…Here is a short list of just some of the greatest inventions given to Man and their inventors, creators, or discoverers, ALL of whom worked a job other than scientist:

1. Electricity: Ben Franklin, Renaissance Man

2. Motor: Thomas Davenport, Blacksmith

3. Steam-engine: Hero of Alexandria; Thomas Newcomen, Iron Worker, Preacher

4. Light Bulb: Frederick DeMoleyns; Humphry Davey, physician, chemist

5. Automobile (gas): Alphonse Beau De Rochas, Karl Benz; Gottlieb Daimler, engineers

6. Automobile (steam, basis for gas): Nicholas Joseph Cugnot, engineer

7. Airplane: Leonardo da Vinci, artist; Wright brothers, journalists and bicycle shop owners; Richard Pearse, farmer; Alberto Santo Dumont, farmer

8. Air Conditioning (modern): William Cullen, physician; Oliver Evans, wheel maker; Jacob Perkins, goldsmith; Willis Carrier, engineer

9. Agricultural Advances: Mostly farmers, such as John Deere, Cyrus McCormack, Thomas Jefferson, Catharine Greene wife of Nathaniel Greene, Edmund Quincy, Anna Baldwin, etc.

10. Other toys and goodies: by various. Like phone, television, radio, x-ray machines, antibiotics, and so on

It is as if, today, scientists want to be philosophers, and what’s worse, is that some of them think they are. Too many of these unproductive theorists, and their suppliants or followers, their parrots, think that because, for example, someone has a doctorate in Microbiology, that such a decorated person therefore has Truth. I dare say most of the time that individual has no idea about Truth, not even about Microbiology. Somewhere on this Earth right now there is someone with no academic degree, perhaps even no schooling at all, who has “just” a burning desire to know the Truth, in this case about the tiniest living things. People such as this, by using their own initiative, and often by following their own unique methods, by an almost magical sort of conjuring, develop ideas and come upon Truth higher than that achieved by the massive conglomerate billion-dollar enterprises dedicated to looking for same.

This in a time when you can pretty well buy any result you want from any scientific study; grants do not come with the answer of “yes, your product is dangerous” or “no, we do not need this administration”. On this, ask for or try to find the actual details about the studies you hear so often mentioned, proving this or that, or disproving that or this. I do not mean the “published study” as paraphrased in Science magazine or an abstract from Journal of the American Medical Association. I don’t want to see just the thesis, summary and conclusion, I want to see the experiments, the notes, the details about the subjects, the conditions of the study, the environment, the temperature in the room, and more. Try to find this information about any study of your choice. As things stand, it is like our accepting the election results, without ever asking to see the ballots.

Because they are not trained, as a matter of course, in Ethics, or Aesthetics, or Epistemology, or Metaphysics, or anything other than the technicalities, and so language of their individual disciplines (and hardly ever, the history of that discipline), scientists are not philosophers by any means. They are, quite literally, tools. The Big Bang and Evolution theories are the creations of certain famous scientific tools. These modern myths have no scientific validity whatsoever, and those today who take them as Truth or Science we can understand as having been initiated into their cult. Thus, brainwashed societal outcasts eschewing real work for a chance at video game-like peerings into the heavens, and getting paid for a joystick in hand (how a propos…) have become desired positions, and even indications of status. This in a time when our newest billionaires actually make nothing to sell or consume and whose entire worth is based on data and “prospective” value. Should not any billionaire be arrested for something? How in today’s world does one become so rich, other than by lying, stealing, cheating, underpaying, overpricing, monopolizing, or numbers games? I’ll give you some more clues – it’s not by hard work, or even shrewd business strategies.

The Big Bang and the Feeble Fizz

The Church of Evolution is as bastard a child as any in the annals of cross-breeding between angels and men or men and beasts. They are together, Evolution and the Big Bang, a cult, a body of beliefs like any other chic but questionable faith, based on wobbly foundations and with no idea of the morality by which any true religion is defined. Rather than an alternative to Creation, Evolution provides only for negation of all other belief systems. Having no defensible doctrine of its own, Bangolution continues to survive only by dirty logical tactics, and by trying to bully its way, Crusade-style, over every other competing religion, er, theory.

The Big Bang as a theory is, as they say, “just a theory”, so let us make up our own theory right now, maybe for similar shits-and-giggles, and call it the “Feeble Fizz Theory”. Whereas The Bang says all the universe began by something outside of space and time which exploded into who knows what, forming therein first space, and so time, The Fizz says it all began with a weak, feeble fizzle, that is, there was no bang, on the contrary, there were made connections between things, for the first time. I’ll call it the “Fizz Effect”, which you can imagine this way: ever-existent (because of the Law of the Conservation of Matter) elementary particle A comes near to elementary particle B, and either a positive or negative electromagnetic-type of current is established between them (love and hate), causing either a union or a rejection. If particles A and B are compatible to a single Form, that is, complementary to each other for united assembly of a given construction in space, they combine, accompanied by a “fizz”. Similarly, if they are not compatible, they push each other away. This gradual pushing and combining, by a type of electro-magnetism, called “fizzings”, is to this day repeated constantly, thereby coming to align all particles and so form the existing universe. I could go on, for volumes.

Now what is the difference between the Big Bang and the Feeble Fizz? Everything, and nothing. We could say “everything” in that they are opposites in explaining how the universe came to be, but we could also say “nothing” in that they both put forth theories equal in their claims to being “just” theory. The difference between a good theory and a bad theory is that the latter simply does not hold up to common sense, conscience, objective reasoning, or observation and experimentation.

This is where the scientists are supposed to come in. As we have established that they are not as a rule philosophers (the theorist is today only rarely even the actually researcher), this is the niche scientists hold. Their job, that is for what they are being paid, is not to put forth vacuous theory anyone can present, but rather to test those theories with the highest degrees of probability based on known entities, or to create, invent, or discover things of practical use. Which theories receive priority should be determined by the possible benefit to Mankind, namely the greatest good achievable for the effort and expenses involved. This is where we need unbiased and objective thinkers again able to correctly and accurately report what they see. One sign of corruption, several signs of incompetence, it should be off to another field for you. The process of unbiased testing and verification is what allows a theory’s elevation to the status of scientific fact.

Evolution and Devolution

It is no different with the Theory of Evolution. This as basis many alternatives have been put forth as to how Man has changed over the years. We cannot dispute in good conscience that Man has changed. These “microevolutionary” adjustments are apparent, and if “Evolution” meant only the tendency of a species to change, due to environmental, hereditary, or other factors, it would be understood as a valid theory, albeit one probably over 3000 years old.

But this omnipresent change is not the kind worshiped by the Evolution Cult, the new religion that has gained as many blind adherents as Horus during the reign of Horus. That Man and the apes have a common ancestor, or for that matter that Man arose from simian or simian-like beginnings, is an entirely different understanding of true evolutionary change. This “macroevolutionary” change, stating genera of species give birth to other genera of species, that, for example, birds became lizards and apes become men, is not so apparent, however, and seems to fail, as we have seen, at every level of observation, let alone the only-necessary one mistake that should be enough to disqualify it as a valid theory. It claims to be both “a fact and a theory”, and while anything can qualify as theory, Evolution, as understood as the cause of emergent species, is certainly no fact; Darwin did not discover the origin of species as promised.

Again we can make up our own theory with as much claim to being science. Let us call our theory this time “Devolution”, and make the hypothesis that Man has done the opposite of “evolve” and is in fact sliding into a backward motion. Rather than progress, Man regresses, the further time moves on. Our fabricated history will tell the tale that Man was once a strong, god-like creature not susceptible to disease and able to live hundreds of years, possessed of seven rather than five senses, possibly attaining in stature the height of houses. Our parable continues, and narrates that Man has lost these qualities over time because of his constant quest to put himself on par with lower creatures, such as comparing himself to, and often mimicking the behavior of apes. Due to these “lower” concentrations of the human energies, the human race, Man, is in sad fact using its free will to become like those animals with which he makes pains to classify himself. Instead of advancing and trying to improve himself morally, intellectually, and biologically, as he has the potential to do, Man is using his unique free will and all his powers to lower and debase himself. Man is therefore devolving.

Again, we must ask, which theory is more likely to be truth? At the level of theory, they are the same, both Evolution and Devolution. What makes one Truth and one subjective opinion should come about by using those same truly scientific criteria we just cited for evaluating the Feeble Fizz and the Big Bang.

Evaluating Theory

Evolution and the Big Bang alike cannot go beyond the level of theory, at worst have the makings of bad science fiction, and could endanger the future of our race on this planet. We have already seen the effects of purposeless inquiries into atomic structure, and of tinkering around with biotics and antibiotics, for example. The pictures we see of dinosaurs and cave men, the crazy dates we are given regarding the age of the Earth and the universe, the speculation regarding the macro and micro-spheres, the reconstructions that are more Artist Conception than simple objective assembly – none of these are enough to make either theory convincing, and worse, they tell us no story we can find a moral in, or an answer to any important question; it is sterile thought producing nothing of human value.

Anyway, as further proof of our Fizzle Fizz Theory I could, besides point to ancient Egyptian texts, show you the continued reality of electricity and magnetism, and as a proof of human Devolution I could challenge any of you to read with comprehension Aristotle’s de Anima, or Agrippa’s works on Occultism, available in English on the internet for free, and then try Homer’s Iliad, and afterwards recite that massive saga to me by by rote, because that’s how years ago that story was told…or for another proof of Devolution, they have some axes used by ancient gladiators still extant, go try to pick one up with one hand, then try to swing, stab, or otherwise wield it, as it would have been used. You will be lucky, better to say uncommonly strong, to even raise it to shoulder level.

Scientists today like to say they have advanced us as a species. Do an honest inquiry into history and you will see just as good an argument could be made that, in the last 3000 years alone, we have regressed mentally and physically, and many books could be written, and some have been written, about such a Devolution. Only the objects, situations, and toys around us have increased, and aside from an approximately two dozens of inventions – which have improved Man’s Life on Earth and coming mostly from non-academics – Science, as understood today, has been too much wasted hot air, and all considered, detrimental to society.

We conclude that as a theory, then, Evolution has no even clay legs to stand on. As a fact, it is a lie.

Evolution Debunked

Some alleged proofs of macroevolution, such as those by Douglas Theobald, are even condescending. We would question, for example, whether “making observations” alone qualifies as any sort of scientific enterprise at all. In this, his highly regarded article, Theobald claims to give (29?) proofs for this controversial type of, or macro, Evolution. Like a wooden stake to the heart of an undead monster that won’t die, in effort to once and for all end this epistemological madness, I will take the time to address every single one of the High School arguments he makes. Buckle in, and look forward to the fact that soon we will move on to what must be better explanations as to the origin of Man.

1. “Argument from the Unity of All Life“: Theobald wants to claim, essentially, that macroevolution is proven because all Life has the same basic elements, and is driven by some sort of universal genetic code. I say “wants to claim” because this seems to come from a misunderstanding of the nature of ubiquitous genes. If it would end at this point, anyway, we would have no problem with this general observation. It is just a confirmation of classic evolutionary principles. But typical of soothsayers, seers, conspiracy theorists – and desperate scientists – it is by combining their speculations and hogwash with known and accepted Truth and confirmed facts that their premonitions get any listen at all. It is certainly true that all Life on Earth is related, but this in itself is no kind of proof for Evolution.

We living beings cannot help but to be made of the same elements, according to the Periodic Table only so many possible elements exist, and so we certainly must at least have micro-elements like atoms and chemicals in common. Similarly, that all life has DNA code of some kind only proves a common vehicle. Even though they share over 80% of their genetics, and you put a monkey and a man on the same train car, it doesn’t make them the same because they share the ride.

Theobald goes on with this example to cite “intermediate species” as proof of macroevolution. First of all, such “species” do not and have never existed. We have species extinct and extant, we have varieties of species, but which is a midway creature nobody can show. The condescending Theobald accepts too nonchalantly the fossil evidence for both dinosaurs and hominids, and also piss-poor evidence for intermediary species. As evidence for the latter he cites “reptile birds” by which he means for example birds with wings that have skeletons resembling the forelimbs of reptiles. And in a way they do, this, again, is true; as we have said, Nature has no need to deviate from what works, and so you and the snake both have a skeleton as structural support. Such commonality does not make you a snake anymore than it makes that snake a human.

Using this truism as base, he goes on to point out fictional Frankenstein monsters like “ape-humans”, “reptile-mammals”, “legged whales”, and “legged sea cows”, as examples of these intermediary creatures. But this is grasping at a bad myth, he may as well cite pink elephants and griffins of his own daydreams. Ape-humans, we have shown, never existed, and the possibility of reptile-mammals, guided by the assumption that mammals gradually “evolved” out of reptiles, relies on the same bad logic as do the other two, namely, just because you see similarities doesn’t mean you prove descent. Why would proving we are akin in some ways to the Oak tree, which we are, prove Evolution?

His further arguments, like the jawbones of reptiles and mammals being similar, proves nothing other than, as we have said many times, Nature’s tendency towards a certain common-purpose structure. The Truth that birds have what look like hands in their wings does not make it true that what were once fingers receded into the developing wings, or that the developing wings later, for the reptiles, became fingers. Perhaps for that wing and weight of the bird that is the best skeletal structure to have.

It is the same with what Theopald calls “legged whales“. The creatures he shows are not footed manatees at all, as he claims, but they rather appear to me to be tapirs, or some similar type of wild pigs or other large-snouted animals. Here is what they found and consider “proof”  below, followed by an Artist’s Conception drawn from those bones, and then followed by a photo of an actual tapir:

It is telling which “fossil” picture Theobald uses for his sample, knowing full well that all those other bones were not discovered. Is it even conceivable to anyone how the center drawing might be derived from those eight bones? Calling a picture that includes undiscovered recreations a “fossil” is also downright dishonest.

Neither are there any “reptile-birds”. We have the archaeopteryx (a discovery of one feather originated this “species”…) but they too are now known to be just birds, perhaps like chickens or actually an extinct dinosaur species with feathers. There were not and cannot be bird-lizards or legged whales any more than there ever were or could ever be ape-men.

2. “Evidence from past History“: Theobald really goes over the top in this argument from history, where he claims that because rudiments and remnants of certain physical traits exist, that these traits are proof of big E Evolution, or macroevolution. In support he cites things like wings on ostriches and cassowaries, and uses several questionable photos in illustration, including one which he says it is of a “hypocritical ostrich”. Here it is probably best you read his own words:

Figure 2.1.1. Vestigial structures of various organisms. From top to bottom: A. A hypocritical ostrich with its wings extended. B. A blind cave salamander – look closely for the eyes buried underneath the skin. C. Astyanax mexicanus, the Mexican tetra, a blind cave fish. [ibid.]

But what can these “vestigial organs” really tell us, more specifically, why are they evidence of Evolution, and not the contrary? Is the hypothetical ostrich a creature that evolved into flying birds, or was the ostrich once a flying bird that lost its ability to fly? Perhaps the ostrich is a symbol of human stupidity: free to use his life to soar, content to stay terrestrial and poke his head into the sand, into scientific babble, or a bottle of booze whenever he can’t take the stress, ruining the sand, the science, and the booze in the process.

Theobald gives pictures as evidence for these vestigial organs, the existence of which organs we should not doubt. As usual, the argument begins with a known Truth. But the pictures he shows are presumptive, and that humans have an appendix which might not any longer serve a purpose is in no wise indicative of the conclusion that species come from other species. These vestiges are no more indicative of  Evolution than, say, Devolution.

Let’s take that (Texas Cave) blind salamander with eyes beneath the skin he talks about, for example. Isn’t such a creature simply a salamander or newt that has adapted to living to dark areas, with vestigial eyes beneath the skin? Or will this blind salamander evolve into a seeing one, and in either case is it not a salamander still? Does what he have as “vestiges” behind the skin what were once eyes, or are they what will in the future become eyes? Devolution would say, perhaps, that this newt is a living metaphor for how much a creature will let even its own senses go to rot, and accept the “comfort” of any even lightless vermin-infested place so long as the predicament affords it a full belly. So while it might be evidence for atrophied organs it might just as well be evidence for developing organs. Or, as is most likely, it was made that way, and will continue to thrive or go extinct that way, the same way it came in.

Also among Theobald’s example pictures for what I am calling his historical argument is a type of blind aquarium fish called a tetra with only vestigial eyes. His point again is to show that Evolution is proven by the existence of these sorts of vestiges, and we argue, this cannot be the case. If all we need to do is display a freak show of mutations and unexplained biological abnormalities – most of which, I should add, are “rejected by science” – I could supply evidence plenty of horned skulls, alien skulls, photographs of men with horns, giants, ghosts, UFOs, and so on. The internet especially is full of these some-real some-faked images.

Is the man at the top, the tallest man alive, indicative of a human race gaining in height?No, I don’t think that displaying the exceptions is conducive to the advancement of science. Where Theobald would argue that these vestigial organs point to the proof of Evolution, I see no such logical transition, and counter that whether these organs are coming or going provides a major difficulty for this so-called “proof of Macroevolution”. With imagination, we can see any creature “descending” from any other, as the ancients who said people came from animals, and all the people who resemble, in some features, other members of the animal kingdom.

Some even resemble the primordial slime…

Again, classification problems do not prove macroevolution. And neither does Theobald’s proof #2.

 

3. “Argument from Parahomology and Suboptimality“: A fancy, and unnecessary way of saying that Theobald thinks Evolution can be proven by the fact that different creatures have similar-looking parts – even if these parts do not have the same function in the different creatures:

There are countless examples of parahomology in living and extinct species – the same bones in the same relative positions are used in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, pterosaur wings, whale and penguin flippers, horse legs, the digging forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs. All of these characters have similar structures that perform various different functions. [ibid.]

Countless? Sure, meaning as far as the human imagination can go, and we know how far, unfortunately, it can go. As we have said, why should Nature deviate from a successful model? What alternative possible structures for living things do we know about besides bone, cartilage, skin, tendons, nerves, etc? Should Nature opt for plastic? I could say, hell will say, that Theobald’s nose descended from that of a chicken, elephant, or duck, yes each in turn, and could draw you a nice diagram to show it. How can anyone, seriously, think it scientific to say that because we both have bones, that human beings therefore have rudimentary fish parts, or that fish have human parts? This “proof” is, nevertheless, merely a medley of the two prior proofs, logically speaking, and no better is the Evolutionary music for it.

The rest of his proofs may be summarized thus:  “Argument from Molecular and Protein Logic“ (et.seq.): Here is the “somewhat  technical” (ibid.) argument as Theobald explains it, in logical terms. We will not stress again how these “technical  terms” are often just empty concepts supporting the Bangolution Cult’s agenda, or we should say, catechism. If I say it is rather “Nature Genes of Deific Cerebration” which are the fundamental building blocks of matter, or that Andromeda is 1502.7 Dorpechi Years away, would you be impressed, or even, would you consider the matters closed? Here, he presents his argument “logically”, “P” being Premise and “C” being Conclusion:

(P1) Ubiquitous genes: There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.

(P2) Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes: Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn’t matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone – you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.

(P3) Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant: Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).

(P4) Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species: Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism – all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.

(P5) Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity: There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.

(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship. [ibid.]

Let me restate this logical progression as it should be written:

1. All living things hold certain genes in common (P2)

2. These genes are called “ubiquitous” and are functionally equivalent (P1, P4)

3. Ubiquitous genes can be sequenced (P3)

4. Heredity alone determines ubiquitous gene sequencing (P5)

Conclusion: Similar sequencing indicates closer genealogical relationship.

These are quite a few premises to accept, and there are steps missing, namely those explicating what constitutes genealogical relationship. Premise 1 about “ubiquitous genes” is itself debatable, and with modern medicine even dangerous. The fact is that there are relatively few of these, and in some circles many of them are considered quite differently, instead of ubiquitous they are seen as “unidentified” genes.

We know little about how genes are generated and interact, we do not know for example if a seemingly malevolent or undesirable strain carries with it a code for progress and genius. It is also a mistake to assume some of these unknown genes as ubiquitous when they might not be. Having said this, we should have no problem accepting that there must be a gene, or something similar, for at least the “Life” that all living things have in common. Let us then accept premises 1 and 2 and move on to premise 3, which states that these genes can be sequenced, which means, broken down to their amino acid nucleotide bases, usually nitrogen, sugars, and phosphates. This too we should not argue with, although, again, the science is very young. When it comes to Man, insofar as each individual represents its own DNA sequence, we cannot discard the possibility that seemingly ubiquitous genomes have a purpose, if an at present unknown one, at least for that individual. If we strike out the gene thought to be 50% responsible for blindness, and eliminate it from our embryos, what else might we eliminate along with that gene? Do we know the inter-dependencies of the DNA and RNA particles one to another?

This leads to premise 4, that all ubiquitous genes have the same function, which premise I have merged with premise 2. Whether ubiquitous genes have the same function or not would depend on the sequencing of the particular ubiquitous genes in discussion, the heredity factor, premise 5. The specific sequencing is what is important here, the house we build, not the bricks we use to build it, as all brick houses are not created equal.

But the conclusion here is the biggest problem as it simply does not follow from the given premises that the more similarly sequenced are the ubiquitous genes of different species, the more related those species are. Cytochromes are a big part of coming to such a deduction, and so we should say something about what they are. These things are essential for all Life, every living creature has cytochromes, but the way it has them – in protein content, structure, etc. – is different. Cytochromes do appear to be interchangeable from one species to the next (ibid.), and they are symbolic of the ubiquitous, as opposed to undeciphered gene, because they do not supply genetic traits so much as provide the avenues whereby species-specific genetic instructions or traits are carried out. It’s like taking a glass of water and pouring it into a bowl. You have changed the vessel, but the water is the same, although it will take on any transferable properties inside the bowl. Cytochromes are like the water.

There is no proof of macroevolution here, but let us grant the conclusion because, well, I am getting tired of Evolution. Even if we were to go numb and feeble and accept all these arguments of our opponent, why would this be proof of macroevolution, on what grounds? Similar sequencing of ubiquitous genes, if it does prove relation among creatures, proves only what we already know, that these creatures are alive and have the essentials for, indeed are, Life. We have proved at least half of the Jamaican saying, One Life, One Love, but still no proof of macroevolution, and nothing at all about Love, which in this system, is a chemical reaction.

I have counted 5 proofs, if anyone finds more in that article, do let me know.

Let us then give 5 proofs in return that there is no proof of Evolution, that it is a fantasy, and we will do it just concerning the origin of Man.

1. There is no objective proof of Evolution. If human beings are in transition, there should be existing some members of the transitional group. We have yet to capture Bigfoot, and if we did, we would ask “where did everybody else go?” We have no transitional forms, we have the same frogs with sometimes fins and sometimes legs, as we have had for ages. We have intricate cocoons spun so that what begins as a creeping creature will become a flying one, a transformation or metamorphosis so dramatic the insect could conceivably wall itself up and later come out as just about anything, and not surprise me a bit. We have no creatures that are half reptilian and half mammal, or part mollusk and part crab. We have animals we have long considered extinct still alive, in fact the coelacanth was once thought to have died out 65 million years ago, and you could catch one today, this single event casting more serious doubt on our methods of dating and our whole chronology, and it will still be the same coelacanth species. We have traits of extinct creatures still carried on in surviving related species, and we have the weakest of creatures, like earthworms. continuing to survive.

2. There is no objective proof of Evolution. As we have seen, the fossil record indicates either chimps or humans.  We have not even one legitimate complete fossil skeleton or even skull of an intermediate human. We have no feet at all, and pieces of everything else. That is it, and that is not proof. The whole question about the possibilities of fossils speaks against Evolution:

If remains must be preserved in a flash,

In ice or amber or lava or ash

then we should have at least some entire bodies. That we do not implicates even the science about the fossilization process.

3. There is no objective proof of Evolution. As we covered at some length already, radiometric dating, geological column-strata, Varve analysis, are all inadequate dating methods for what we do find regarding ancient fossils. The world is very likely a very different age than what Science supposes.

4. There is no objective proof of Evolution. Why did only some animals decide to become humans? Why didn’t all living things become the “fittest”? Does Evolution assume all creatures are “evolving” in the same direction? Where is the evidence of this, the almost-human contemporary ape? What is the goal, if not strength, or intelligence, or longevity? Why is there a goal at all?

5. There is no objective proof for Evolution. If Evolution is true, unrelated species and even genera should be able to interbreed, if the parts fit. There is no reliable evidence that this has ever happened. Especially accepting the theory that so much DNA is of the ubiquitous type, why do the different species remain unable to inter-breed, seeing as heredity is the prime organizer or genetic material?

And so let me do as my opponent has done, and close with our conclusions the same way, and also state that Evolution does not explain the Origin of Man, that Evolution is in fact The Cult of today, that Evolution is a religion in everything but morality, can be falsified. You can prove me wrong, by finding clear fossil evidence of the probable descent of one single species throughout the ages. That is, if you want to say mammals came from reptiles, and humans came from other mammals, just show us a series of actual (not artist conceived) skeletons displaying clearly the gradual change of one animal into another different one. It is not enough to show one or two mammals with characteristics shared by a reptile. Show us the middle degrees, if you can even tell which is a reptile and which a mammal, from any fossil. Furthermore, provide us a dating system better than written history, which you have not yet done.

Right-click, Open New Tab (or New Window) to see larger

Here is my (again similar…hey, you have to be speak in their language to really understand the primitives) argument that the Big Bang and Evolution are Cults:

(P1) A system of belief which relies on faith alone, with no inherent morality, is a cult.

(P2) A system of belief relying on faith alone with which spreads its dogma, without any, or with only highly questionable proofs of that dogma, is a cult.

(P3) A system which rewards believers and punishes unbelievers, is a religion; when this is done without fair judgment, this religion is a cult.

(P4) A system which has its beliefs taught to schoolchildren to the exclusion, in fact scorn of alternatives, is a cult.

(P5) Evolution is a system of beliefs which relies on faith alone, which spreads its dogma using at best marginal proofs, it punishes scholars who do not agree by refusing them ear (and publication…), and it is taught to public schoolchildren without alternative.

(Conclusion) Evolution is a Cult, a bad religion, without morality, or even good stories to tell.

So, we are, to my satisfaction for now, done with the scientific explanation for the origin of Man. It’s two main theories have helped us little, other than allow us to state confidently that Evolution is one bad theory, a grand illusion, a hoax, a brainwashing of mass proportions, an enigma unquestionably believed by those of The Cult. Its sister the Big Bang is a related Cult, and together they are the Cult of Bangolution, a new religion,  relying like most cults on false promises, lies, and intimidation, put forth by their priests the scientists, and their mouthpieces, their evangelicals and missionaries, the parrots of the babble known as teachers, writers, and collaborators, those who call themselves “educated” by virtue of their fanatic commitment to speculation and uncertainty.

Below, some closing photos to think about, and next time, we head into Religion, which I hear, has some different ideas as to the origin of Man. But don’t check your skepticism at the door. The search for Truth demands we retain it, regardless of whether or not we are in Rome.

ET with bad teeth?

Were you to dig up Waldo’s skeleton, would you think you came upon a race of giants?

Proto-humans, you say?