By Robert Roma © Copyright 1999
The natural state of matter is chaotic yet living systems create order out of this disorder in a continuous communication and interaction with the environment. All that is living is said to be a part of the whole, making living patterns out of the chaos that permeates our cosmos.
Our modern sciences purport to deal in facts, the so-called truths and observations existent within our universe. From this data theories are advanced to account for the facts observed. Thus, to many, science is equated with truth. But, is science the TRUTH?
An impartial objective look at some of the modern sciences soon reveals the flaws, in their theories and observations of the facts. A close look at one modern science example will suffice to show my meaning here. Let's see what modern science has to say on our first-times—the—Creation of Man as compared to the facts observed.
Swiss Cheese and Evolution
As an answer to man's beginnings, science has put forward the so-called "Darwinian Theory of Evolution".
According to the Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary this is "An evolutionary theory which postulates the survival of the best adapted forms, with the inheritance of those characteristics wherein their fitness lies, and which arise as random variations due to mutation" and "evolution" is given this meaning (p. 599). "Changes in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations. The gradual development of more complex organisms from simpler ones" (p. 319).
Though the theory is being taught at many schools as FACT, as will now be shown, in TRUTH, this theory has more holes than say, a slice of Swiss cheese.
Who's on First?
First, credit where credit is due! The earliest recorded writings on evolution appear to be that of a French diplomat Benon de Maillet, born 1656. Written in 1715, posthumously published in 1749 the book is titled "Telliamed." Over millions of years the basic scenario is this, Germs of Life—marine organisms (fish)—(walk on) land-birds—animals. Similar views were held by a number of ancient Greeks e.g. Anaximander and Empedocles. These views were not generally accepted though.
FACTS: Telliamed is de Maillet backwards
Benon de Maillet thought and wrote that the evolution of Man began with outer space "Germs of Life" finding their way to Earth. Voltaire derided Maillet's theory. If Darwin thought like this he does not appear to have written it down. In 1831, at 22, Darwin had already failed as a medical student and as a clergyman. The Beagle was returning slaves. The Home Office decided a scientist should accompany the ship, Darwin's Professor made a recommendation and the rest is history (or not, as the case may be).
1. Swiss cheese: evolutionists cite the fossil records in support of their theory, that is, of gradual adaptive mutations.
FACTS: There is no complete successive fossil record. There is no successive fossil record showing evolution and life development from a single cell. There are very few successive "younger" to "older" geological strata layers discovered (they tend to be topsy-turvy). There are a few sites that show all the layers. Many older fossils are more complex.
The fossil record shows a profound and dramatic change from reptilian lifeforms to mammals—and without any proven mutational intermediaries nor single cell gradual development layers.
It is "normal" for geological strata to have older strata above younger such strata. This layered type has no explanation in evolution as with other aspects of science and their processes, such as mountains forming, magnetic pole changes, massive fossil and bone burial sites, rapid weather change sites, etc.
2. Swiss cheese: evolution relies on natural selection through specific mutation(s) to a more complex life-form and allows no renewal of species following extinction.
FACTS: Very few mutations are beneficial and procreative to following generations (through the production of hybrid species unable to breed). The fossil record shows no such mutational progression of species. [And] In New Zealand for example there are fossil remains of a Tuetara lizard dated in a geological strata to 135 million years ago. The layers above showed no remains. Thus the Tuetara lizard was classified extinct . . . Yet, a Tuetara lizard was found alive and well in some islands off New Zealand fairly recently (The Unseen Hand, A.R. Epperson p. 355).
There was no obvious mutation of species noted.
Genetics and Mutations
Mendel's genetic theories are a science aspect in direct conflict with Darwinian evolution. His (Mendel's) experiments show that "new" character(s) acquired are not brought about by mutation, but through genetic expression of an (already) inherent character normally/usually masked by a more dominant gene. Mutations however, are the result of inherited copying errors in the DNA. (These changes to the original can be "losses" or "add-ons"—according to the evolutionists).
However, whilst DNA information losses have been (rarely) noted such as the beetles on windy islands acquiring the wingless gene (so they won't get blown into the sea. . .) I am yet to see any evidence of a positive/evolving "add-on" mutation.
Geneticists have been conducting mutational experiments for over seventy years. Yes, mutations do occur but any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse (in regard, to the "life" of the organism. . .)
Chimps are 97% Human
Swiss cheese: evolutionists often say the DNA shows chimps and humans to be 97% alike.
FACTS: As of now, neither human nor chimp DNA has been fully sequenced. (So where did this 97% come from. . .)?
[Gene sequencing status report indicates human DNA mapping was not completed until 2003. Statistics on sequencing and mapping of the chimp genome are difficult to pin down even though mapping and sequencing were largely completed by 2006. A report describing the massive effort to produce a more accurate view of the chimpanzee genome has not been published as of 2010].
Looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53%. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome. Because genes occur in families or similarity categories, the researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories. They found a 33% difference. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories—entirely different classes of genes—compared to chimps.
In all seriousness however, even a 3% difference in DNA would mean mutations to approximately 90 million DNA base pairs (also that all such were beneficial or add-on mutations). Actually, new chromosome research undermines human-chimp similarity claims.
As far as I'm aware, science has yet to experimentally replicate even one add-on mutation. . . !? neither are mutations noted in the fossil records. . . I also note life expression is influenced not only by genetics but also by the morphogenic field effect(s).
Science in Opposition
Modern sciences have realised/declared certain LAWS. These include the First and Second LAW(S) OF THERMODYNAMICS. These laws are generally and universally accepted within the science aspects.
In his "The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth," Dr. H.M. Morris explains these laws as follows;
1. First Law: The total amount of energy remains constant. Energy is not being created anywhere in the universe, its form only is being changed.
2. Second Law: Energy becomes less available through changes brought on by decay. "The Second Law demonstrates that there must have been a beginning or otherwise the universe would already be dead. The First Law demonstrates that the universe could not have begun itself since none of the processes creates anything. The real law of change, however, is one of decay, not of 'growth, a change "down" instead of a change "up." Thus the laws of thermodynamics sharply conflict with the philosophy of evolution."
Swiss cheese: scientists are unbiased and dedicated to their profession.
FACTS: Scientists are human too. More than half of the geologists (for example) work directly for the oil companies, thus reliant on their largesse, so to speak. . . (The Genesis Flood, J.C. Whitcomb jnr. and H.M. Morris p. 430).
For an inside Canberra view of the monopolised oil companies, their economic influence, political strengths and strategies. I refer the reader to former Deputy Prime Minister, Treasury and ALP Government Minister, Dr. Jim Cairns; "Oil in Troubled Waters" (Widescope 1976, National Library of Australia).
The majority (if not all) of the ancient records are totally ignored by mainstream scientists if not ridiculed and denigrated. Their sciences have been around for less than say, 2-300 years yet they think they know all of the Earth's history (minimum: 6,000 years).
Of Scientists, Dr T.N. Tahmisiam (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee" (20/8/1959) states: "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."
Swiss cheese: evolutionists too; often cite a number of fossil finds to "prove" the missing link(s) to man. Usually included in these links are one (or more) of the following.
FACTS: "reported" to be half a million years old. Found in 1912. Reconstructed from a jaw-bone. Considered an authentic link (till 1953) when it was revealed the jawbone came from a modern ape, was stained and filed down (to look "older").
FACTS: cited at the Tennessee Scopes trial by scientists "proving" man evolved. Reconstructed from a tooth. From this tooth reconstruction scientists created Nebraska Man, his flesh, hair and family. Yet, when further fossils were excavated from the discovery site the eventual reconstruction turned out to be a pig (not even an "ape-man").
FACTS: Reconstructed from one leg-bone, three teeth and a skull piece. Considered an authentic ape-man link until it was revealed that the leg-bone and skull piece were found 14 metres (45 feet) apart and at a level in the rock which also contained human skulls. Dubois, the fossil discoverer announced the skull actually belonged to a giant gibbon.
Luce (and Family)
FACTS: Reconstructed from a number of small skull fragments. Initial studies indicated a possible link, however generally acknowledged now as a similar but separate/unique species. (Methinks man and ape should be such a combination).
FACTS: Tallish man with a curved spine (of some nature).
FACTS: Fossil evidence of this link discovered in geological strata supposedly 1¾ million years old. Yet, carbon dating of other site material was approximately 10,000 years old. Besides the dating method shortcomings, here we have two science aspects in direct opposition (geological dating -v- carbon dating), used somehow to support a third aspect—Darwinian evolutionary science.
Here I repeat the words of Dr H.M. Morris, ". . . the real reason why—after multitudes of fossil fragments have been examined and sorted by evolutionary anthropologists for over a hundred years—there is still no agreement as to man's evolutionary ancestry, is because he had no evolutionary ancestry. . ." (Impact #74 August 1979), and those of H.P. Yockey (Journal of Theoretical Biology 1977 Vol. 67 p. 396) in the article: "A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory":
"One must conclude that, contrary, to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."
The Odds of Evolution Facts:
Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramsinghe independently concluded (in mathematical jargon) the odds of the spark of life originating at random to be 10 to the power of 40,000. This is the figure; (the odds are) 1/1 followed by 40,000 zeroes, (Daily Express 14/8/81).
In "Hoyle on Evolution" he notes; "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
To give a comparison of these infinitesimal odds. . .
According to other science aspects, there are approximately only 1 followed by 22 zeroes stars in the universe and any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the power of 110 cannot occur. (40,000 zeroes is approximately 12 pages of typed zeroes). I note casinos and bookies too give much better odds.
A number of books have been written detailing what is referred to as "OOPARTS." (A particular detailed favourite of mine is "The Hidden History of the Human Race" M.A. Cremo and R.L. Thompson). These are artifacts (or data etc.,) found out of traditionally synchronised time-frames and context. The following from Paluxy River, Texas is just an example:
A limestone layer dated to supposedly 120 million years ago revealed a dinosaur print (Dinosaurs apparently died out some 60 million years ago). The slap to the science of evolution is this fact: Next to the footprint was another, that of Man . . . or . . . The so-called Stone Age cave paintings (eg. Arizona USA/Rhodesia) that depict dinosaurs. . . Did not "prehistoric man" paint what he saw and knew!?
It is freely acknowledged that nature works in "symbiotic balance." The food chains depend on it. Certain species are hunters/predators of others. These in turn have their own predatory source(s) and so on. So how does the evolutionist explain such queries as "Who came first—the bee or the flower?" and "The hunted animal or the hunter?" "The male or the female?" "The chicken or the egg?" The fossil record indicates sudden life form appearances at similarperiods in time of many animals, plants, insects etc. working in harmony with (the rest of) nature in aid of species survival and the relevant support systems.
Without the natural balance inherent in the co-existing species, a short-term dominance of the predators would occur, followed in the long term with extinction for all life-forms. (A classic Australian example is that of the rabbit. Introduced from overseas, it has ravaged certain parts of this land where exists no natural predator to cull it's numbers; the existing plant life is destroyed thus indirectly unbalancing the food chain of the higher life forms originally existing on the surrounding vegetation and so on. . .)
Swiss cheese: evolutionists cite a foundational premise that man's evolvement took place approximately one million years ago.
An initial population of 2 increasing at only 2% per year would become 3.5 billion in only 1,075 years. . . increasing at only 0.5% per year would become 3.5 billion in only 4,000 years. . .
Question: So where have all the people gone?
Answer: Logic dictates either man's evolvement data is incorrect and/or sudden and widespread deaths of massive numbers of people worldwide (repeatedly?) have occurred. . .!
According to another aspect of science, as the Earth moves through space, meteoritic dust accumulates on its surface. At the present fall rate if the Earth dates back some 5 billion years there should be a cover layer of meteoritic dust some 54 feet in depth. . .
FACT: There is not. (Layer is 1/8th of an inch or less. . .) According to another aspect of science, the Sun is contracting at a rate of 0.1% per hundred years.
So, 100,000 years ago the Sun was twice it's current size. . . 20,000,000 years ago the Sun was touching the Earth's surface. . .
FACT: It was not (or no Earth would exist now. . .)
Another such knotty problem can be found with those who study the Earth's magnetic field. From their observations and experiments it is now known that the strength of this field is decaying. Calculations at this rate show that any extrapolation past more than 10-20,000 years ago would indicate a field and current so high and so hot it would have dissolved the earth. . .
Einstein or not, man's current cranial capacity is rated at approximately 1,500 – 1,600+ cc. The majority of the so-called evolutionary links have cranial capacities of approximately 600 – 700cc.
Question: Where are the fossil records of the more recent evolutionary links that were gradually mutating through natural selection and genetic adoption from 700-1,500 cc? or,
Question: What caused the sudden increase in cranial size? or What caused this not so Gradual mutation. . . ?
My last note here is just another question.
Question: Who and where are the life-form species currently or recently undergoing evolution?
In his 1980 Assembly week address, Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Professor Whitten stated "Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with it's predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants".
So, in general traditional terms, the view of such a science does not equate with ALL the facts, nor is it then the TRUTH. Scientific theories mean just that. It's a theory. To become a TRUTH it must account for ALL the facts.
The "blame" for evolution though is not to be laid solely (if at all) at Darwin's door. By reading his introduction (p. 2) to Origin of Species, one realises Darwin knew the difference between theory and TRUTH (and expected his readers to know and note).
"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." In this light should his theory be considered.
Even earlier, within his research into Origin of Species, Darwin admitted to this dilemma but the narrow mindedness of the followers of evolution and their dogma prevented them from hearing ALL of the TRUTH.
Contained in his Beagle journals (Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries visited during the Voyages of HMS Beagle Round the World, January 9, 1834) yet largely ignored by the evolutionists are the following statements in which Darwin admits his theory has no answer to, for it does not cover the ALL of the facts.
"It is impossible to reflect on the changed state of the American continent without the deepest astonishment. Formerly it must have swarmed with great monsters; now we find mere pigmies, compared with the antecedent, allied races. . .
. . . No-one will imagine that a drought . . . could destroy every individual of every species from Southern Patagonia to Behrings Straits. What shall we say of the extinction of the horse? Did those plains fail of pasture, which have since been overrun by thousands and hundreds of thousands of the descendants introduced by the Spaniards. . .
. . . Certainly no fact in the long history of the world is so startling as the wide and repeated exterminations of its inhabitants. . .
. . . It could hardly have been a change of temperature, which at about the same time destroyed the inhabitants of tropical, temperate and arctic latitudes on both sides of the globe. . .
. . . The greater number, if not all, of these extinct quadrupeds lived at a late period, and were the contemporaries of most of the existing sea shells. Since they lived, no very great change in the form of land can have taken place. What then, has exterminated so many species and whole genera? The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe . . . but thus to destroy animals, both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the Cordillera of Peru, in North America up to Behrings Straits, we must shake the entire framework of the globe. . ." nl698.htm
www.biblebelievers.org.au contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. Under the Copyright Act 1968 Fair Dealing two or more articles from the same journal issue, magazine or newspaper may be copied without constituting an infringement on copyright if they are for the same research or course of study. The source for this article is the (defunct) Exposure Magazine (Vol. 6, No. 3, August-September, 1999). Neither the magazine nor its publishers could be contacted by 'phone, FAX, email or on the Internet. The author, Robert Roma was unknown by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (Australian Journalists' Association) or by a Google search.
Why Darwinian Evolution is Flatly Impossible
By Lloyd Pye © Copyright 1999
No matter how high evidence stacked up against evolution in the past, Darwinists could always slip through the "it COULD have happened" loophole. As long as genetic mutations and physical changes (microevolution) were evident, interspecies transitions (macroevolution) had to be accepted as plausible. Not any more. Lloyd Pye closes the Darwinian loophole, and evolutionary science will never be the same:
1999 was the 140th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. In that landmark volume he postulated that life on Earth had developed into its millions of forms through a long, slow series of fundamental changes in the physical structure of all living things, plants and animals alike. Though small and gradual, these changes would be relatively constant. Bit by imperceptible bit, gills would turn into lungs, fins would turn into limbs, scales would turn into skin, bacteria would turn into us. The problem for Darwin, and for all Darwinists since, came when the mechanism behind those changes had to be explained.
Because Darwin's era was only beginning to understand cellular function (Gregor Mendel's treatise on genetics did not appear until 1865), Darwin proposed a system of gradual physiological improvements due to small, discreet advantages that would accrue to the best-adapted progeny (his famous "survival of the fittest") among all living things (a bit stronger, a bit swifter, a bit hardier), making them subtly different from their parents and producing offspring with similar advantages accruing in their physiological makeup. When enough small changes had compounded themselves through enough generations . . . voila! A new species would have emerged, sexually incompatible with the original parent stock, yet inexorably linked to it by a common physiological heritage.
Once cellular function came to be better understood, particularly the importance of DNA as the "engineer" driving the entire train of life, it was quickly embraced as the fundamental source of change in Darwin's original model. Darwinian evolution, as it came to be called, was indisputably caused by mutations at the genetic level.
Because such mutations were obvious to early geneticists, and could eventually be induced and manipulated in their laboratories, it seemed beyond doubt that positive mutations in DNA sequencing were the key to explaining evolution. That left neutral mutations exerting no effect, while negative mutations afflicted only the unlucky individuals who expressed them, but had no lasting impact on a species' collective gene pool.
Darwin's Blackest Box
In 1996 Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., published a book called Darwin's Black Box. He defined a "black box" as any device that functions perfectly well, but whose inner workings remain mysterious because they cannot be seen or understood. To Charles Darwin the living cell was an impenetrable black box whose inner workings he could not even imagine, much less understand. To scientists today the cell box is no longer quite as black, but it is still dark enough to leave them with only a faint understanding of how it works. They know its basic components and the functions of those components, but they still don't know how all those pieces fit together to do what cells do . . . live.
Life is still every bit the profound mystery it was in Darwin's day. Many additional pieces of the puzzle have found their way onto the table since 1859, but scientists today are not much closer to seeing the whole picture than Darwin or his cronies. That is an ironic reality which few modern Darwinists will accept in their own hearts and minds, much less advertise to the world in general. So they supply the media with intellectual swill that the media, in turn, unknowingly palms off as truth, while the scientists edgily cross their fingers and hold their breath in the hope that someday, maybe even someday soon, but certainly before the great unwashed get wise to the scam, they will finally figure out the great secret . . . they will see into the heart of the universe's blackest box . . . they will understand how life actually works, from the first moment of the first creation to evolution itself.
Shall We Gather at the River?
Darwinists teach and preach that life began spontaneously in a mass of molecules floating freely in the Earth's earliest rivers and seas. Those molecular precursors somehow formed themselves into organic compounds that somehow formed themselves into the very first living organism. This incredible feat of immaculately choreographed bioengineering was, Darwinists insist, accomplished without the aid of any outside agency, such as a Prime Mover (what some would call "God"), and especially not anything extraterrestrial. It was done using only the materials themselves, with a probable assist from a perfectly timed, perfectly aimed lightning bolt that in just the most serendipitous moment imaginable, swirled tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of inanimate molecules into a living entity.
For as glibly as Darwinists have fashioned and promoted this scenario in schools to this day, the complexity of its mechanics might challenge the creative skills of a busload of Prime Movers. Countless lipids have to somehow be coaxed to form a membrane that somehow surrounds enough strands of DNA to create a cell that can manage life's two most basic functions: it must absorb organic and inorganic compounds in its environment and turn them into proteins, which can then be converted into energy and excreta; and it must have the ability to reproduce itself ad infinitum. If all of those varied factors, each a bonafide miracle in itself, do not occur in the precise order demanded by all living cells for their tightly orchestrated, step-by-step development, then the entire process becomes laughably improbable.
British astronomer Fred Hoyle has offered the classic analogy for this scenario, stating that its actual likelihood of being true and real equals "that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and correctly assembling a Boeing 747." It did not and could not happen then, just as it cannot be made to happen now. The very best our biochemists can do today is construct infinitesimal pieces or the puzzle, leaving them little nearer to seeing how life truly works than Darwin and his cohorts 140 years ago. But why? What's the problem? Haven't we cracked the atom? Haven't we flown to the moon? Haven't we mapped the ocean floors? Yes, yes, and yes. But those things were easy by comparison.
Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places
If the Darwinists are so wrong, where are they wrong? What is the fundamental mistake they are making? It has to do with where they are looking, specifically which is the cell, inside the cell, and specifically at the functioning of DNA. Because the twisting double-helix of DNA contains the instructions for all of life's processes, the assumption has always been that disruptions in the patterns of those instructions are the only logical explanation for how physiological changes at both the micro (small) and macro (large) level must be created and executed. In other words, changes in DNA (mutations) must be the engine driving all aspects of evolutionary change. Nothing else makes sense.
Sensible or not, however, it is wrong. Why? Because in 1984 a group of British researchers decided to do an experiment utilising what was then considered to be a universal truth about genes, handed down from Gregor Mendel himself: the idea that genes are sexless. Mendel had postulated that a gene from either parent whether plant or animal, was equally useful and effective throughout the lifetime of the individual possessing it. This was taken as gospel until those British researchers tried to create mouse embryos carrying either two copies of 'father' genes or two copies of 'mother' genes. According to Mendel's laws of inheritance, both male and female embryos should have developed normally. After all, they had a full complement of genes, and if genes were indeed sexless they had all they needed to gestate and thrive.
The researchers were stunned when all of their carefully crafted embryos were dead within a few days of being transferred to a surrogate mother's womb. How could it happen? What could have gone so wrong in a scenario that couldn't go wrong. They were completely baffled. What they didn't know, and what many refuse to accept even now, fourteen years later, is that they had unwittingly opened their own and their icon's darkest, blackest box. They had ventured into a region of the cell, and of the functioning of DNA, that they hadn't imagined was off-limits. By taking that inadvertent journey they ended up forging an entirely new understanding of Mendelian inheritance, while driving a stake through the already weakened heart of Darwinian evolution.
A Time to Live and a Time to Die
Normally, father genes or mother genes control the expression of their own activity. A father gene might give, for example, the signal for a crop of head hair to grow, to "express" itself . . . and to stop expressing when he follicles had been constructed in their proper places in the scalp. The cessation of the expressing process is called methylation, which is the surrounding of expressing genes with clusters of chemicals that shut them off (picture the cap being put back on a toothpaste tube). In the same way, a mother gene might express a pair of eyes and then, when they were completed, "methylate" the gene's growth processes into inactivity.
Until 1984, it was believed that all genetic function operated the same way. If a gene or suite of genes came from Dad's side of the mating process, then those genes managed their own affairs from birth until death. And the same held true for genes coming from Mum's side of the mating. But certain genes turned out to exhibit radical differences, depending on whose side of the mating process they came from. When the female mouse embryos died, it was found that genes vital to their growth had inexplicably never been turned on at all, while still others were never turned off (methylated) and spiraled unchecked into cancers.
Even more baffling, the fatal processes in the all-male embryos were entirely different from those in the all-females. The embryos were dying for reasons that were clearly sex-biased. What could it possibly mean?
Imprinted genes were found to be the culprit. Imprinted genes, it turned out, could be expressed by either parent and, incredibly, methylated by the other parent. Somehow, someway, by means not clearly imagined, much less understood, genes from one parent had the ability to independently begin or end processes that were critical to the lives of forming embryos. In the world of genetics as it had always been perceived, that was impossible. Only a localised (sexless) gene should be able to control its own destiny or purpose, not a separate gene from an entirely different parent. Cooperating genes broke all the rules of physical inheritance that had been written by Gregor Mendel. Yet imprinted genes do, in fact, disregard Mendel's rules; and by doing so they provide the above mentioned stake that will inevitably be driven through the heart of classic Darwinian evolution.
Life's Blueprint Writ Wrong
So far geneticists have identified about 20 imprinted genes embedded within the 80,000 to 100,000 believed to comprise the entire human genome. New ones are discovered on a regular basis, with many geneticists predicting the final tally will reach hundreds, while others suspect the total might reach into the thousands. But whether hundreds or thousands, any imprinted genes at all means that classic Darwinism can no longer count on mutations in DNA as a plausible mechanism for fundamental physical change.
For mutations to be acceptable as the engine of Darwinian change, they have to be able to occur in isolation and then, as stated earlier, pass themselves intact to succeeding generations. By definition that means they have to be able to regulate their own functions, both to express and to methylate their genetic processes. Whenever a trait mutates, whether a longer limb, a stronger muscle, or a more efficient organ, it should pass into the gene pool whole and complete, not half of it being expressed from the male side of a pairing and half from the female side. Why? Because both parents would have to mutate in complementary ways at the same time to the same degree . . . and then they would have to find each other and mate in order to have even a chance to pass the mutation on!
Natural mutations, while statistically rare, are clearly documented. They can be neutral, negative, or positive. So when geneticists contend that isolated mutations in DNA can occur and be passed on to succeeding generations, they first assume the individual with the mutation has been fortunate enough to have the correct one out of the three possibilities. They further assume the individual survives the brutal winnowing process Darwin so correctly labeled "survival of the fittest." But fittest or not, any fledgling animal or plant must contend with an infinite number of ways to miss the boat to maturity. Assuming that passage is safe, the lucky individual with the positive mutation as to get lucky several more times to produce enough offspring so that at least a few of them possess his or her positive mutation and also survive to maturity to pass it along. It is a series of events every bit as unlikely as Fred Hoyle's tornado sweeping through a junkyard, but at least it is remotely feasible.
Imprinted genes neatly sever those imperceptible threads of feasibility by making it literally impossible for any mutation, positive or otherwise, to effect more than the individual expressing it. There is certainly no way for it to work its way into a gene pool regulated by imprinted genes. Why?
For the reasons just stated above: for a mutation to be implemented, it must be beneficial and it must be paired with a similar change in a member of the opposite sex. Thus, if only a handful of genes are capable of being turned on and off by different parents, then Darwinian evolution has no place in the grand scheme of life on Earth. Imprinting shoves Darwinists well beyond any hope of feasibility, to a region of DNA where change is incapable of being positive.
Timing really is Everything
What we are really talking about with imprinting processes is timing, the most exquisite and incomprehensible faculty any gene possesses. By knowing when, and being able, to turn on and off the millions to billions of biological processes that create and sustain living organisms, genes control the switches that control life itself. In effect, whatever controls the timing switches controls the organism. If, for example, only one methyl group misses its turn-off signal on an expressing gene, the resultant non-stop expressing will lead to cellular over-production and, ultimately, cancer. Conversely, if only one gene fails to express when it should, at the very least a seriously negative event has occurred, and at worst the organism has suffered a catastrophe that will terminate its life.
More important than this, however, is that timing sequences cannot be altered in any way, shape, or form that will not be detrimental to offspring. In other words, the 'evolution' of a timing sequence in the development of an embryo or a growing offspring simply cannot be favourable in the Darwinian sense. Why. Because in terms of results it is already perfect. And how do we know it is perfect? Because the parents both reached maturity. What is so special about their reaching maturity? It means their own timing sequences performed perfectly in their own embryos, with their initial sperm and egg differentiating in millions of ways to become their bodies. (In plants the same principle holds true). Then their growing period developed perfectly, with its millions of different timing events leading to their limbs and organs growing to their proper sizes and carrying on their proper functions.
Any alteration of that perfection can be, and nearly always is, devastating. In golf a putt drops or it doesn't. In timing sequences, they are started and stopped precisely, or not. There is no room for error or improvement (no third condition called 'better'). Thus, no genetic alteration to timing can create the faster legs, larger horns, sharper teeth, etc., called for by Darwin's theory of piecemeal change. This is why gills cannot become lungs, why fins cannot become limbs, why scales cannot become fur or skin. No single timing mechanism can "evolve" without altering the perfection that has been passed to offspring by parents through untold generations.
A good analogy is the building of a house. We start with a blueprint. Analogise this with the genetic blueprint provided by DNA. The former outlines the physical materials that go into a house: wood, nails, sheetrock, doors, etc. The latter outlines the physical materials that go into creating a body: blood, bones, skin, hair, etc. Next, we bring in the carpenters who will build the house. It is they who, following our carefully drawn blueprint, will determine everything that will be done to create our house. More importantly, they will determine when all parts of the house will be built, when any particular process will start and when it will stop. They will build the floor before the walls, the walls before the roof, etc.
Building our house is thus a two-part project: what to build, and how and when to build it. It is the same with living organisms, whose carpenter genes (the mysterious timing mechanisms that turn growth processes on and off) determine their success. Now it becomes easy to understand Darwin's fundamental error. While examining the widely varied houses of living organisms, he saw no trace of the invisible carpenters who have the decisive hand in their creation. Therefore, his theory did not—and so far cannot—account for the fact that carpenter genes invariably prohibit alterations.
If I had a Hammer
As with a house, DNA contains or provides everything necessary to create a particular organism, whether animal or plant. DNA has the further capacity to define and manufacture the physiological materials needed to create the entirety of the organism, precisely when they are needed and to the exact degree they are needed.
And, perhaps most wondrous of all, DNA contains the ineffable carpenter genes that determine when each phase of the organism's construction will begin and end. Any organism's parents will have passed to it a set of DNA blueprints of what to build and how to build it, which are nearly always perfect with respect to timing, but allowing slight variations in what is built. On the occasions when faulty timing does lead to tragedy, the imperfections are due to sperm-egg misconnects, or molecular anomalies in DNA caused by radiation or chemicals.
Where classic Darwinian evolution completely breaks down is in not allowing carpenter genes to exist separately from end results. Darwinism contends that when any aspect of an organism's materials change (i.e., a mutation in some strand of DNA which changes some aspect of physical structure), that organism's carpenter genes smoothly accommodate the change (alter the blueprint) by adjusting the timing sequences (beginning and end) of that structure's development. This is not reality. A Watusi's thighbone takes just as long to form as a Pygmy's thighbone (about 18 years), so only the end results (their respective sizes) have changed, not their timing processes. This is one reason why all human beings can so easily interbreed, even the unlikely combination of Watusis and Pygmies. Our vast array of underlying genetic timing mechanisms, including our imprinted genes, have been handed down intact (unevolved!) since the beginning of our existence as a species.
Thus, what is built can be slowly, gradually altered; how it is built cannot. This obvious fact . . . this undeniable truth . . . has the most profound implications: There is no improvement possible in the carpenter genes of successful organisms! And without improvement, via Darwinian change, how could they have evolved? Not just into something from nothing, but into millions of interlocking, tightly sequenced commands that smoothly mesh over extended periods as organisms develop from embryo to birth to sexual maturity? The short answer is, "They can't."
What all this means, of course, is that everything we think we know about how life develops on Earth is flatly wrong. It means all of our "experts" are totally mistaken when they tell us that Darwin's theory of gradual mutations has led to the development of all species of plants and animals on the planet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Darwinism cannot work now, it has never been able to work, and the time has come for its supporters to stop their intellectual posturing and admit they need to go back to their drawing boards to seek a more plausible explanation for what is surely life's greatest single mystery.
www.hissheep.org contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. Under the Copyright Act 1968 Fair Dealing two or more articles from the same journal issue, magazine or newspaper may be copied without constituting an infringement on copyright if they are for the same research or course of study. The source for this article is the (defunct) Exposure Magazine (Vol. 5, No. 4, October-November, 1998). The author, Lloyd Pye, may be contacted at his website, or via e-mail.
Would you like to share this page with a friend? Click Here