Monday, 9 September 2013

Darwinism, Another Fairy-Tale?

Darwin said, ‘Natura non facit saltum’ : nature takes no leaps. Except it does….

Problems with Darwinism and gradual evolution:     

1. Primordial Soup: The actual chemical content of the ‘primordial soup’ as currently considered could not have given birth even to amino acids (contrary to earlier experiments which used the wrong chemicals apparently) let alone a fully-fledged cell, which is a bit like a Concorde happening by accident. To randomly produce a protein molecule or the gene to produce it would be a probabilistic impossibility (one chance in 10 with a 125 zeros after it).

2. Cambrian Explosion: we had jellyfish, sponges and worms for billions of years and then ‘boom’ virtually all the ‘families’ of animals (phyla) appeared suddenly in the fossil record fully formed. Darwin admitted that the Cambrian explosion went against his theory but felt confident future discoveries would vindicate him. They haven’t. Darwin remains unvindicated yet this does not bother the mainstream. This situation alone is enough to disprove gradual evolution according to Darwin himself. There is also no experimental evidence to support the view that there were gradual changes within the genetics structure which took place but then expressed themselves suddenly – why would natural selection or gradual evolution affect a process in the DNA that had no visible effects for billions of years? The hidden genetics hypothesis is completely unsubstantiated experimentally. Clutching at straws comes to mind.

3. Embryology: Darwin claimed that because early embryo’s look similar this is evidence of common ancestry. However the early embryo diagrams by Haeckel were doctored (this was known in 1860 yet the diagrams were still being used in 1990s!).  Most embryos are not similar in their early stages.

4. Homology: similar features in different animals. The developmental pathway theory of evolution (tree of life) and common gene pathways theory have both failed experimentally (for example genes for  the eyes can be swapped between frogs and flies yet still the right eye for each animal develops). Developmental pathway and gene pathway theories cannot therefore be used to validate Darwinism. Homology itself is not proof of Darwinism as it can also be used to argue for Intelligent Design.

5. ‘Gills’ in non-fish mammal embryos: could be just neck creases in the womb.

6. Missing Links: The archeopertyx is simply an extinct bird, it is not a missing link as it was from the wrong era to link reptiles and birds. There are little or no ‘missing links’. We are supposed to accept on faith that birds descended from dinosaurs but this is not proved. If Darwinism was correct the fossil record should be jammed packed with ‘missing links’ and intermediate forms. It is not. Therefore gradual evolution from species to species is not supported (macro-evolution). Micro-evolution, (changes within a species), is generally agreed as we can all see it happen. (Update - I recently read about how the gradualism of our own evolution does not stack up either. Our nearest hominid pre-human, is dozens of 'missing links' away from us. What are described as 'pre-human' are essentially upright apes. The difference between them and modern man is an immense leap of massive changes in bone density, skeleton and skull shape. Gradualism does not explain this process. The changes between Neanderthal and modern human are equally massive and sudden. Our matriarchal DNA also indicates we are a very young species - the exact opposite of what Darwin's theories would predict if we 'gradually' emerged).

7. Java Man: Half-ape/half-man from 1891 was a ‘skullcap, a femur, three teeth and a lot of imagination’.

8. Irreducibly Complex Systems: there are many biological systems such as bacterial flagella (complex tail propellers with ingenious super-powered micro-engines) which cannot be reduced to simpler systems. If you take one part away from the complex whole it no longer functions. Most scientists are at a loss to describe how gradual selection can create irreducibly complex systems, of which there are many.

9. The cell itself is so complex that many leading biologists have all but given up the ‘chance’ hypothesis. Many scientists now side with intelligent design, often changing their position from a previously held view of gradualist evolution as such a view is not compatible with the evidence.

10. Molecules: How can gradual evolution work at the molecular level where there is no organism to be affected by natural selection? Darwinism fails to explain how non-life can organise to produce life.

11. DNA: There is no known chemical or physical process which would bring the first DNA or RNA sequence together into formation. The power to do so would need to come from outside the molecule itself. (Life-force may be capable of doing this but life-force is not known to most scientists of either intelligent design, evolutionist or creationist persuasions).

12. Self-organising processes known to mainstream science produce mechanical order, such as repetitive sequences of crystals but life itself is a different kind of order (an irregular complexity capable of producing new information). However life-force sciences observe that irregular complexity does spontaneously arise in the form of the life-vesicle termed the bion by Reich or other pre-cellular forms discovered by others. The proto-cellular form bions can be created by cooking organic matter at high temperature. They display life-like characteristics though they are much less complex than a cell. Here are bions emerging from a super-sterile, autoclaved hay infusion:

Here are some quotes from molecular biologists such as Dr Wells:

‘Darwinism is merely materialist philosophy masquerading as science'

‘Darwinian evolution is bankrupt.’

The above notes were taken from or were inspired by Lee Stroebel's book 'Case for a Creator', the chapter on Darwinism, a very enjoyable account of a journalist's investigation of the mainstream scientific evidence for a creator. My own views differ quite a bit from Strobel's because he is not aware of life-force, which changes the ball game once again. A good book too which pulls apart the 'religion' of modern blind science is this by the scientist who has worked on the 'morphic field' theory, Dr Sheldrake, The Science Delusion

Also, in politics it should be remembered, Darwinism is absolutely fascist. No single theory has done more to philosophically support fascism in both economics and sociology than Charlie's contribution. Think Eugenics, think Rockefellers, think Nazism, think mechanical biology - all rely on Darwin's theories as background support and validation. The strong crush the weak, there is no spiritual higher powers, everything has a mechanical cause, there is only mechanics and anything approaching a God or a spiritual perspective is redundant. 


  1. Interesting article on the context of Darwinism and Kropotkin's alternative theory by SJ Gould here
    He refers to an article on Russian responses to Darwin, here

    1. Thanks, unbelievably, only just read your comment as had this blog linked to old gmail...thanks for those articles, will have a read and see how it sits with my current thinking on evolution, or the lack of it...:-)