“Harvard paleontologist [and evolutionist] Stephen Jay Gould declared that neo-Darwinism “is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy...”

“Chen’s [Chinese paleontologist, expert in the Cambrian era] wry smile as he answered. “In China,” he said, “we can criticize Darwin, but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

Biologist and real scientist Meyer's deconstruction of Darwinian-Atheist absurdity, imbedded in the evolutionary 'dialectic' in which a single cell protozoa becomes a 100 Trillion cell complexity named the human, is so impressive, it is a certainty that no Darwinian acolyte or cult member of the Atheist theology, will read it, or if they do, could possibly refute any of his analysis. Darwinism is not science. It is not rational or reasonable. It is not open to enquiry. It is a close minded cult dedicated to money and power and imposing Atheism on society.

“Darwin openly acknowledged important weaknesses in his theory and professed his own doubts about key aspects of it. Yet today’s public defenders of a Darwin-only science curriculum apparently do not want these, or any other scientific doubts about contemporary Darwinian theory, reported to students.”

It must be comforting for Darwinists to know that Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al were admirers of evolution. Great role models of tolerance, open-mindedness and science.

Meyer's critique goes through and eviscerates every single manifestation of Darwinian cult theology. The buzz-words used by Darwinists full of tautological irrationality and usually faked experiments are dispatched with science. Some useful observations that Meyer makes includes;

1) Are you really clever if you believe in abiogenesis or life from dead matter ?

“Though neo-Darwinists often dismiss the problem of the origin of life as an isolated anomaly, leading theoreticians acknowledge that neo-Darwinism has also failed to explain the source of novel variation without which natural selection can do nothing—a problem equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.”

“chemical evolutionary theories have failed to solve the mystery of the origin of first life—a claim that few mainstream evolutionary theorists now dispute.”

“no chemical evolutionary processes had demonstrated the power to explain the ultimate origin of information in the DNA (or RNA) necessary to produce life from simpler preexisting chemicals in the first place, many critics cited processes at work in already living organisms—in particular, the process of natural selection acting on random mutations in already existing sections of information-rich DNA.”

2) Morphology requires full information sets not random changes and mutations kill cells

“microevolutionary changes (such as variation in color or shape) merely utilize or express existing genetic information, while the macroevolutionary change necessary to assemble new organs or whole body plans requires the creation of entirely new information.”

“macromutations,” inevitably produce deformity and death. Only minor variations meet the test of viability and heritability”

“More complex single cells might require upwards of a million base pairs of DNA. Yet to assemble the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would need orders of magnitude more protein-coding instructions.”

“average gene has about 1000 bases, then an average protein would have over 300 amino acids, each of which are called “residues” by protein chemists. And indeed proteins typically require hundreds of amino acids in order to perform their functions. This means that an average-length protein represents just one possible sequence among an astronomically large number—20300, or over 10390—of possible amino-acid sequences of that length. Putting these numbers in perspective, there are only 1065 atoms in our Milky Way galaxy and 1080 elementary particles in the known universe.”

“critics and defenders of neo-Darwinian evolution now reinforce the same conclusion: if coordinated mutations are necessary to generate new genes and proteins, then the neo-Darwinian math itself, as expressed in the principles of population genetics, establishes the implausibility of the neo-Darwinian mechanism.”

3) The tree of what ?

Another pretty diagram used by the Atheist cult of Darwin is the tree of life. It does not exist. There is no common ancestor between the human and the tulip. The genetic information by species is peculiar and held not only in DNA but in the epigenome. A flat worm does not want to become an Atheist professor with eyes, hands and legs. There is no code or digital information to allow it to 'evolve' such structures.

“mode of germ-cell formation is nearly randomly distributed among the different animal groups, making it impossible to generate a coherent tree based on this characteristic, let alone making any comparison between such a tree and the canonical tree.”

“evidence support different and mutually exclusive subsets of [phylogenetic] relations.”

“Genetic change affecting any one of the necessary components, unless matched by many corresponding—and vastly improbable—genetic changes, will result in functional loss and often death.”

4) How about the Cambrian explosion?

Darwinists have no clue how 23 phyla within a period of 10 million years, around 544 million years ago, appeared fully formed with complicated neurological, cardiovascular and organ systems.

“Cambrian phyla with no apparent ancestors in the Precambrian rocks (i.e., at least nineteen of the twenty-three phyla present in the Cambrian have no representative in Precambrian strata).”

“Agassiz concluded that the fossil record, particularly the record of the explosion of Cambrian animal life, posed an insuperable difficulty for Darwin’s theory.”

“If Darwin is right, Agassiz argued, then we should find not just one or a few missing links, but innumerable links shading almost imperceptibly from alleged ancestors to presumed descendants.”

“..building, for instance, a trilobite from single-celled organisms by natural selection operating on small, step-by-step variations would require countless transitional forms and failed biological experiments over vast stretches of geologic time.”

“evolutionary biologists now concede that the long-sought-after Precambrian fossils, those necessary to document a Darwinian account of the origin of animal life, are missing. Scientists are especially candid about this when addressing each other in the technical peer-reviewed literature.”

The main reason why Meyer wrote this book was to dismiss the tortured myth-making by evolutionists around the supposedly 'pre-Cambrian' life forms which magically developed via the Gods of chance, time and mutation, into complex phyla.

“An arthropod cannot exist without its exoskeleton. Any plausible ancestor to such organisms would have likely left some hard body parts, yet none have been found in the Precambrian. Yet the deep-divergence hypothesis, whatever its other merits, requires a viable artifact hypothesis to explain the absence of fossilized Precambrian ancestors.”

So it would appear.

“probability of any given mutational trial generating (or “finding”) a specific functional protein among all the possible 150 residue amino-acid sequences is 1 chance in 10 to the power of 77”

This is below zero. You would have more of a chance winning a lottery ticket every day for a year, than to see new functionality developed by random chance at the amino-acid, protein level.

“probability of generating just one gene (for a new functional protein fold) from all the bacteria (and other organisms) that have ever lived on earth is just 1 in 10 trillion, trillion, trillion.”

The most striking feature of reading this book is the utter desperation of Darwin's cult and its tax-funded 'research'. Billions each year pour into evolutionary 'research'. It is state-sanctioned and supported dogma, pure and simple. If you want a job at a university or institute, and you want access to grants, money, journals which will publish your work and of course the coveted international trips and confabs; you better support the state's dogma. Otherwise you will be fired, punished, humiliated, attacked, demeaned and slandered. Nice cult. And the smart people call this 'science' ? High time to defund the fraud of Darwin's cult.