Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Science should never be the domain of closed-off 'experts', who chase money, fame, tenure or relevancy. Pasteur famously conducted public displays and experiments to go around the establishment, who mocked him, debauched his work, demeaned his person, naming him as a non-scientist [he was a trained chemist]. Open systems exist in IT, why not science ?
From Douglas Axe's excellent book on why Evolution is just such a-scientific jargon and nonsense:
'Embracing open science empowers people who will never earn Ph.D.s to become full participants in the scientific debates that matter to them. Instead of merely following expert debates, non experts should expect important issues that touch their lives to be framed in terms of common science. Once they are, everyone becomes qualified to enter the debate. This doesn’t apply to intrinsically technical subjects, of course, but the matters of deepest importance to how we live are never intrinsically technical.'
Common sense trumps degrees. I don't recall the Wright Brothers, or William Harvey having advanced degrees. In today's clime they would be ridiculed as rubes and rednecks. These men amongst thousands of others, have had more impact on humanity than the millions of advanced degrees spouting metaphysics in lieu of real science, or realistic invention. Open science means show us the data, show us the methodology, prove your 'conclusions' and don't hide behind fraudulent and corrupt 'crony' review, poorly named as 'peer' appraisal.
In this regard, Axe asks the cult of a Darwin a very simple question. Can your turn enzyme A into enzyme B? Surely if mud became His Majesty Husain Obama, enzymes must have, and must be able to; self-create ?
'Our aim [Axe was part of a scientific team looking at changing enzyme formation], was to determine whether it would be possible for enzyme A to evolve the function of enzyme B within a time frame of billions of years. If natural selection really coaxed sponges into becoming orcas in less time, inventing many new proteins along the way, we figured it should have ample power for this small transformation. But after carefully testing the mutations most likely to cause this functional change, we concluded it probably isn’t feasible by Darwinian evolution. Additional work supports this conclusion. Mariclair Reeves—like Ann Gauger, a biologist at Biologic Institute—painstakingly tested millions upon millions of random mutations, searching for any evolutionary possibility that we may have overlooked in our first study. She found none.'
So where is the bio-chemical proof that mud became Orcas ? These metaphysicians can't even get 2 enzymes to change their functional pattern. Yet we are to believe that the human brain 'evolved' by luck into the most complex organ in the universe. How did it happen precisely ?
'The staggering complexity of the brain’s structure, with its hundred trillion neural connections, is certainly one reason for the slow progress, but I have to think that false preconceptions are another. Materialism, in particular, has constrained thinking within brain science as severely as it has elsewhere. Even the title of that workshop—From Molecules to Minds—is a proclamation of the view that mental processes are grounded in molecular processes.'
Random molecules bouncing around do not self-arrange to create the brain. 'Natural Selection' is just rhetoric. Genes selecting from what, how and why? Competitive advantage ? What would gene software know about competitive advantage ? Why would a sponge want to become a fish ?
'Tour says: If one asks the molecularly uninformed how nature devises reactions with such high purity, the answer is often, “Nature selects for that.” But what does that mean to a synthetic chemist? What does selection mean? To select, it must still rid itself of all the material that it did not select. And from where did all the needed starting material come? And how does it know what to select when the utility is not assessed until many steps later? The details are stupefying and the petty comments demonstrate the sophomoric understanding of the untrained..'
Evolutions always quote natural selection. This seems particularly stupid. Why would a fish 'select' to 'evolve' legs, and change its software, when it does not know what a leg is ? Why would a chaotic process impinge itself on the fish, and force it into 'evolving' genetic software for legs ? It is ridiculous and tautological. Not one single experiment has proven that fish 'evolve' to become amphibians, reptiles or anything else other than fish. It is all or nothing. Everything in a fish must work together in a complex whole. If you start ripping components apart the whole will simply die. This is what mutations do in the real world. They kill information. Our ignorance of genetics and DNA software is no excuse to make up fairy tales.
'The view that most aspects of living things can be attributed neatly to specific genes has been known by geneticists to be false for a long time, this being the first common DNA myth to fall. A second, which has fallen only quite recently, is that scientists even have a clear understanding of what a gene is. Without exaggeration, a recent article in Science and Education stated that “the gene concept is currently in crisis.” It turns out that the simple picture of a gene as a section of DNA that encodes a protein, as described in chapter 3, no longer holds for anything but bacteria..'
The more we discovery about bio-chemistry and the complexity of life, the less Evolution makes sense – even as a fairy tale. Science like IT, should be made 'open', open to review, open to data analysis, open to computational investigation, open to criticism, open to new ideas. As it currently stands the cult of science and scientism, is one of the great obstacles to real science.
Evolution's magic stories. Darwinists vociferously commit themselves to naturalism, in which the roughly 2 million species in our world; appeared during 3.5 billion years of 'evolution', forming their complexity over long periods. Naturally, naturalism, must support the creation of these species and of life itself, ex-nihilo, that is from nothing. The foundation of Evolution is the a-scientific belief, which contravenes the First Law of Thermodynamics, that dead matter, and nothing; created life. There is no where for the Darwinist to hide in this regard. Since Evolution rejects the Creator, it embraces a non-scientific, never demonstrated idea that dead matter creates living matter. Period.
Evolutionary support for abiogenesis is a screaming testimony to the madness of cults and their myths. Abiogenesis rejects science and is firmly in the realm of fiction. Yet Atheists and Darwinists call themselves 'rational'. That is laughable.
From dead matter to Hussein Obama, is a very long journey indeed. Time, chaos, and mutations which 99% of the time are neutral or degrading, somehow, magically, through pixie dust and Darwin's fiction writing, created the great man Obama, from star dust. And the textbooks call this 'science'.
The major links in the dead matter-to-man theory would include inter-alia, the following fantastical 'evolutions':
Evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules,
Evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules,
Eventual Evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules,
Evolution of the first cells
Evolution of single cells into complex cells
Development of body plans, organs, brains, etc. in these complex cell agglomerations
Concomitant development of vegetative life and complex processes like photosynthesis, the oxygen cycle, the carbon cycle
Random establishment of perfect climatic and chemical conditions to allow life to flourish
Just forming a 'simple' cell would thus involve multi-millions of links, all which either are missing or unknown. Evolutionists offer no proof whatsoever, that the above list could plausibly arise from dead matter, in a soupy pond, with the creation of complex nano-technology and DNA software resulting from time and chaos.
Consider the Protein.
No molecule or chain of molecule in nature, nor any created by man, can compete with proteins. None. Proteins are unique, complex, and so well-designed that it is impossible, given mathematical calculations around probability, they could arise by chance. Indeed every single Evolutionary experiment to create just 1 protein ex-nihilo has failed. The Miller-Urey fraud of 1953, in a contrived Lab produce a few dead amino acids. But a protein string is on average a syntactic functional structure of 150 amino acids, left handed, selected from 20 base amino acids, held together by peptide bonds, manufactured by ribosomes. The chance that a manufacturing process arose by randomness is less than zero. And humans have 2 million, perhaps as many as 10 million proteins – we don't even know the number. Consider:
Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.
The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.
The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.
The magnitude of the above is daunting. We need genes, DNA, RNA, Ribosomes and 'plans' or templates to create proteins. It is even worse for Evolutionists. Proteins change, responding to cellular signals. The Proteome or constellation of proteins within a cell is dynamic, replying to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. This means that a protein's chemistry and its associated utility will be informed by the gene sequence and by the number and functionality of other protein's, made in the same cell, at the same time, which it has a relationship with. This nano-technology and set of interdependencies cannot arise by chance. Just as software code in which you 'pass' parameters from one object to the next, to affect state and induce an action, are coded and designed, so too quite logically, must nano-complexity be coded and designed.
The chance of functioning proteins – some 2 million or more – which are discrete software entities 'arising by chance' in a soupy pond, or 'evolving' by magic randomness as the creature searches for 'competitive advantage', impelled by 'natural selection', is not science, but mindless rhetoric.
When you read Evolutionary theology, for example, 'The Origins of Species', or the decidedly racist and supremacist, 'Descent of Man', both by Darwin; you are impressed by the lack of science. No rigorous experiments are cited. No replicable observations-hypothesis setting and calibrated work is referenced. No detailed scientific, mathematical or even logical disposition is given, supporting the claim of abiogenesis, 'evolving species', or even more specifically, the 'natural selection' of the human eye [which must connected to the nervous system and brain – both highly complicated systems with hundreds of components].
Darwin admitted the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using time, chaos, and mutations [which kill they don't add information, visit a radiation clinic treating cancer patients for more detail]. There is not one single example of chaos, time or software degradation producing complexity, design and quality. Not one. It would be as if Amazon.com did no maintenance on the millions of lines of software code which runs its massive e-commerce site, and somehow, magically the site added new functionality, new pages, new products and new innovations – all through 'striving', 'naturally selecting', or some other rhetorical device. The opposite would happen – the site would collapse without constant repair and re-design by humans.
Evolution has never explained the eye. No mechanism, no path, no logical explanation has ever been tendered by the cult of Darwin which even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation. The same is true of every other organ, system and components one finds in the human body. All of these systems are not only elaborate and sophisticated; but inter-dependent. So what came first, the blood or the heart ? Glucose or insulin ? The eye or the nervous system ? The nervous system or the brain ?
Are you really going to argue that the heart 'evolved' into being, whilst concomitantly, blood appeared, including red blood cells, insulin and other complexities ? What is the mathematical chance that such a process or set of processes to be more accurate, occurred not only in one person, but also in a mate in the same locality ?
For a human baby to survive, all of the systems need to be in place. Hence the long gestation period of the human embryo. The systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune systems. All of these systems must be present or the baby dies. Logically, it stands to reason, that all of these systems must be in operation at the same time and present during the embryonic development. Logically, there is no possibility whatsoever, that within the embryo, you would have 'evolving' complexity. It is all or nothing.
Consider just the reproductive system. This complex set of moving parts and interdependencies, is according to the cult of evolution, 'slowly evolving' over millions of years. Does that make any sense ? How would the 'evolving creature' reproduce if the system is chaotically forming by 'natural selection' over millions of years ? Who do they mate with ? What systems does the mate have ? Why would 'natural selection' coincidentally 'evolve' reproductive systems, at the same time, in precisely the perfect way, to allow mating between male and female ? What is the mathematical chance of this occurring ? We can calculate this impossibility across all species. The mathematical chance that all species would randomly evolve 2 sets of reproductive systems, at exactly the same time, and 'evolve' them in lockstep over 'millions of years' is less than winning the lottery every single day for 1000000 years. It did not happen.
Appealing to mutations is like appealing to little green men, or 'science'. Mutations kill they don't add value. In one experiment 1500 generations of fruit flies were bombarded with radiation and chemicals. The generated mutations were negative. The flies did not 'evolve' into pterodactyls or sparrows. In fact the majority of flies became freaks, and died, or could not mate and simply vanished. [Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation (Volume 1) , Dennis R. Petersen, Christian Equippers Ministries, Calfornia, 1987, page 84]. Mutations kill, which is why cancer treatment is so painful and results in the loss of functionality for the patient.
Mutations obviously conform to science – namely, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. All systems fail. All software degrades. All complex systems fall into simpler sub-components. The opposite law is also true. Chaos produces nothing. Chance produces chaos. Complexity does not arise from chaos or time. My cat will still be a cat and his progeny 4 billion years hence, would still be cats. They don't mate with dogs, fish, or monkeys. There is no 'intermediate' species between the squirrel and my cat. My cat is simply a cat. Fully formed, functional, with all or nothing software.
It is either ignorance or mendacity, or both, to propose mutations as the magic secret sauce to take pond scum, to a screaming mad climate professor, spitting about a trace chemical necessary for life. There is no science to rhetoric.