Evolution is not ‘science’: a summary of why this is a fact.

One of the great scientific frauds in history, a philosophy with no proof whatsoever but lots of money and power to push the materialist world-vew: $cientism.

In the beginning…..

Beguiled by experts and ‘The Science’, impressed by long monographs and poetic constructions, fooled by allegories and metaphors, I used to belong to the religion of atheo-agnosticism including its metaphysical foundation, ‘Evolution’.  This mechanical materialism, which has existed in various forms for some 3000 years, is now accepted as the basis of ‘biology’.  The world is much poorer for this rather ignorant belief.  Real science has been retarded and discarded since the days of the fraud and non-scientist, Darwin. 

Having spent 25 years within ‘The Science’ in physics, cosmology, general sciences and then IT, including application building and creating data platforms, I have become intimately acquainted with the differences that exist between mechanical, binary-proofs (objective reality) and that of abstract explanations disconnected from objective proofs (subjective philosophy).  Identifying philosophical and scientific fraud is not that difficult when you know where to look.  The religion of Darwin is rife with fraud.  Entire books have been written on the subject.  

Then I grew up….

Within this journey some 15 years were spent evaluating ‘Evolution’ as a ‘science’ including performing long term experiments (bacteria, flies).  When no proof of Darwin’s miracles could be found, it was the beginning of my personal apostasy away from one of the great lies in ‘science’.  Even long ages were found to be largely falsified (more later on why this is probably true, though there is a difference between space time and Earth time).  Such beliefs are of course anathema in the age of ‘The Science’ which is a byproduct of ‘The Enlightenment’ and the ‘monism’ of ‘reason’.  Surely anyone born before 1640 was ignorant and stupid.  Only the ‘modern’ is clever and informed.  

Didn’t the Corona plandemic prove how intelligent the modern is, confirming the ‘natural selection’ of the ‘fittest’ and ‘best’?  Or did you notice the obvious clanking reality that you are not surrounded by the ‘fittest’ or the brightest?

Darwin did not perform one single experiment to prove his philosophical-religous doctrine. Why then is he a ‘scientist’?

Charles Darwin was NOT a scientist

What is it?

This post is the first of a few on why ‘Evolution’ is false and is not a science.  There are 3 main domains where Darwinian theology fails and fails badly: chemical evolution, mutations and ‘natural selection’.  This post will summarise why these areas prove that ‘Evolution’ is not a science.  I will follow up with more details in subsequent posts.

By ‘Evolution’ I mean the nothing-to-you theory of metamorphosis.  Bacteria to humans, fish to reptiles and reptiles to birds, algae to alligators, prawns to professors.  I do not mean differences in individuals including different sized finch beaks.  None of these are proof of anything. 

(Michael Ruse is a British-Canadian philosopher who looks at the faith within biology)

Domain 1:  Chemical Evolution

Life does not form from non-life.  That is a scientific ‘law’.  Darwinism at its core is based on abiogenesis.  Logically this means that the edifice of Darwinian theology whether you call it neo-Darwinism or some other name, is false.  We know that:

-Spontaneous generation has been disproven many times dating from the early 17^th century (Harvey, Redi, Spallanzani, even that quack Pasteur).  

-Animate life cannot be formed from the inanimate.  You can try this yourself at home.

Darwin believed in abiogenesis, philosophising that spontaneous generation would be proven by some future ‘natural law’ yet to be discovered (like dark matter, dark energy).  We know that:

-Chemical evolution is a chimera like abiogenesis. No proof, no experiment, no observation has even come close to demonstrating the enormous complexity of life arising from non-life, not even a single cell, nor a single protein arrangement, let alone DNA or RNA has been manufactured ex-nihilo. 

-The failed 1954 Miller-Urey experiment conducted in a human designed and contrived lab environment produced a few dead amino acids.  Life cannot arise out of simple electrified compounds, in either a lab or Darwin’s warm soupy pond.  Contaminants and oxygen, which degrade DNA, RNA, and a million other issues are apparent with such a simplistic approach to the incredible complexity of organisms.

Chemical evolutionists cannot produce, even in designed labs, proteins ex-nihilo.  No proteins, no you.  The average coded protein contains some 150-500 amino acids with left-handed chirality.  The human body possesses many thousands of proteins and enzymes (exact number is unknown).  For a protein with a chain of 500 amino acids the number of possible linear arrangements is 20³⁰⁰ or 10⁶⁵⁰.  There are 10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe.  1 chance in 10⁵⁰ is considered impossible.  There is no mathematical possibility of producing even a single protein by ‘chance’ in nature, in a warm soupy pond near Darwin’s Sussex home.  None.

Domain 2:  Mutations

All mutations are neutral or destructive, none can be identified to add functional value.  Humans generate about 30-50 mutations or negative coding errors every generation.  At some point in time, these mutational loads will mean extinction.  You can use this fact to trace back the age of humanity (hint, it is not millions of years). As with software systems you don’t need 100% degradation to cause system dysfunction and inoperability.  This means that devolution, not evolution is our reality. 

We know that:

·       3 % of DNA or 6 inches of the 6 feet of DNA you have in each cell, is coding.  97% is control and administration.  There is no junk DNA, another chimera long disproven.

·       Sexual reproduction slows down mutations by recombining DNA and slowing down the development of mutational loads.  Darwinists cannot explain sex nor reproduction. 

·       In large scale experiments with bacteria and viruses, researchers found that even over 30 years of breeding these creatures did not ‘evolve’ but fluctuated at best around a species mean or degraded and lost functionality.  Engineering ‘new species’ has led to functional issues and disability, not ‘evolving’ improvements or a new body type. 

We know that mutations are the major cause of diseases including heart diseases and cancers. More than 17,000 diseases are now listed, up from 1,500 in 1966.  In my opinion the mass ingestion of toxins including ‘vaccines’, poor diets etc are largely to blame and these toxins are causing massive cellular mutations in our bodies.  Mutational loads ie devolution, is thus accelerating…….

Domain 3:  Natural Selection

The word-salad of ‘natural selection’ is still acknowledged as the main contribution of Darwin to evolutionary theory but was in fact a very ancient idea, which Darwin popularised by using Herbert Spencer’s ‘survival of the fittest’ to describe a mechanical dialectical process of species development. From the soup to the sailor.  Like Einstein, Pasteur and many others, Darwin never bothered to attribute his plagiarised material to others. 

Natural selection does not exist and should not be conflated with ‘adaptation’ which every creature possesses in their operating system and code.  Nature does not select anything and is an indifferent, impersonal and cold entity.  You can find out yourself by running naked to the closest woods and attempting to survive.  Your chance of survival will depend as much on luck as on your ‘traits’.  Nature could care less if you live or die.  Nature is not your ‘mother’. 

We know that the white fur colouring of a polar bear, which is a close relative of the brown bear, does not mean that the polar bear ‘evolved’, it simply means that its existing genetic traits ‘adapted’ to its environment.  It has nothing to do with ‘survival’ of the ‘fittest’.  Polar bears can and do mate with brown and grizzly bears.  All of them are still ‘bears’.  This fact is replicated across every species and is confirmed by the variations within a species. A rose is a rose. It is not ‘striving’ to become a raven. A raven does not mate with a rose.

We know that:

1. Survival of the fittest does not mean ‘progress’, since it conserves what is known and is best described as the culling of the sick, ill and old (disease, plague, still births, age, bad luck, war, competition, predators).

2. Darwin applied human breeding techniques to nature and gave ‘natural selection’ the role of nature’s breeder. No such ‘natural breeder’ exists.

3. Darwin could not explain the ‘arrival of the fittest’, or the origins of any species.

4. Darwin retreated to the discredited theories of Lamarck which postulated that biological characteristics acquired during a lifetime are passed on to the offspring (an entirely absurd idea, for example a weightlifter passing muscle size to his children).

5. There are obviously clear limits for each species to size, weight, speed, height and other characteristics. Darwin believed in unlimited variation and combination. Animals only procreate within their own species and within defined limits.  Horses cannot be bred to grow wings for example.

6. Clearly good luck and happenstance are as important in survival as being ‘fit’ which is never defined (how is a sloth fit?).

7. Fossils do not support macro-evolution, and there are no missing links.

Bottom Line

Evolution and Darwinism is not a ‘science’ but a philosophy and an approach to historical biology.  None of the ideas from the 19^th century or 20^th century are particularly novel or unique.  One can read them in Aristotle, Epicurus, Lucretius, Paracelsus and even Descartes. Evolution has a long history and pedigree of being ineffably wrong, unscientific and an obstacle to real scientific progress.

The only peg left for Evolutionists to hang their hat on is the god of time.  And that god is also false. Even with unlimited time, not a single protein in your body, nor a single cell within the 70 trillion cell complexity you possess, could form by ‘chance’ in nature. 

Evolution is a part of $cientism.  Darwinian theology is saturated with money.  Within biology or science at large you won’t get published, or receive tenure or a professorship, or keep your media talking points career, if you offend the Darwinian deep state.  Money has long triumphed over real science.

Some sources you shouldn’t read:

·       Ferrell, Vance, ‘Evolution handbook’

·       Bethell, Tom, ‘Darwin’s House of Cards’

·       Bergman, J. ‘The Three Pillars of Evolution Demolished’

·       Denton, M., ‘The miracle of Man’

·       Denton, M. ‘The miracle of the cell’

·       Behe, M. ‘Darwin Devolves’.

·       Milton, R. ‘Shattering the myths of Darwinism’

And dozens of others I could list. 

$cientism and 'Evolution'. Jerry Bergman, 'The Dark Side of Charles Darwin'.

Richard Milton and a rational investigation into the Religion of Darwin and Evolution.

Darwin's Religion and Scientism. Cult of Evolution - Fraud and Materialism.

Epigenetics. Another Darwin fail.