RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

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:  Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from.  It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 


Cult of Darwin - Recent Articles

Human and Ape DNA is quite different

Unless you believe the Religion of Evolution's Data Fraud

Bookmark and Share


The scientific silliness of proposing that an ape, or an ape-like ancestor, or a ‘common ancestor’ to both Apes and Humans, became Human; or that Humans are just hairless examples of such primitives, is quite astounding.  There are billions of software coded differences (in DNA), between Apes and Humans.  And, of course, the Religion of Evolution has committed data-fraud, to propose that 99% of DNA material is the same, between Humans and Apes, thus ‘confirming’ the Evolutionary march from Bacteria, to Monkey, to Man.  


In reality, there is a great gulf – unbridgeable by the Church of Random Chance, Luck, ‘Mutations’, or ‘Genetic Drift’ – between Simians and Humans. I would guess in reality, no more than 60% of genetic material is similar, which considering the basic mechanisms which make up living creatures, is what I would expect.  A similar amount would be found if we compared a Volkswagen to a Jet Airliner.  Did the car mutate into the plane?



More detailed research has determined that the best genetic-comparison estimate is not 99, 95 or even 90 percent but 84 percent similarity. That 16 percent difference represents 3/4 of a billion base pair differences.  The length of the 23 human chromosomes is about six feet, and the only way this molecular length can be sequenced at present if to break up the strands into lengths that can be worked with, then reassemble the sections. In the early DNA-sequencing work scientists were able to sequence only very short DNA segments.


Thus, researchers focused on DNA segments that they knew would be highly similar between animals, such as blood globin proteins. Even in those genes there was a problem. The chimp genome is much longer than the human genome: there are 3,096,649,726 base pairs in the human genome and 3,309,577,922 base pairs in the chimpanzee genome – a 6.4% difference.


Furthermore, humans have forty-six chromosomes, chimps forty-eight. It is difficult to compare gene sections that are not even slightly comparable…


Evolutionists tend to ignore these large sections lacking congruence in their quest to focus on similarities. Non-coding regions used to be called ‘junk DNA’ back in the days before they were recognized as important segments with critical regulatory functions.


…one cannot glean meaningful comparisons between the common occurrence of DNA sequences existing only in humans, but not in chimps. Thus, the comparisons made are largely within the genic regions DNA, such as those that code for blood cell proteins like hemoglobin. One would expect they would have very similar genes because, for hemoglobin to function, the protein must be a very specific shape. Consequently, a good deal of sequence similarity exists between species that need the same functional similarity. But non-coding regions—which are just as important—show more variations, thus skewing the claimed similarities.



The ‘science’ of Data Fraud.  Evolution has always been a Religion in search of meaning.  Equating yourself with a Simian based on fraudulently data and self-loathing anti-Humanistic theology and philosophy, is emblematic of deep psychological trauma.



Bergman, Jerry. 2020. Apes as Ancestors: Examining the Claims About Human Evolution. Tulsa, OK: Bartlett Publishing. Co-Authored with Peter Line, Ph.D., and Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. Chapter 5: “Are Humans and Chimps 98% Similar?” Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. & Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

Neo-Darwinsm: a philosophy with no supporting scientific proof

All hail the cult of Science and bow down to the altar of Chuckie

Bookmark and Share


Edited from Source


Neo-Darwinism was disproven (yet again), long ago in 2003 by 3 evolutionary believers (called scientists), in Spain.  Not that the Fake News-Fake Science circus would divulge such information.  Experiments, observations, reality which contravenes the Secular Religion of Darwinism-Evolution is studiously ignored, if not pilloried and calumnied.  Neo-Darwinism is a philosophical reflection, not a science.


The study performed at the Institut Cavanilles de Biodiversitat i Biologia Evolutiva, Universitat de Valencia in Spain, was published in PNAS (i.e., 10/26/2003), and it found no support for the central tenets of neo-Darwinian theory: namely, that evolutionary adaptations arise by natural selection acting on beneficial mutations.


Neo-Darwinism, also termed the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, was formulated in the 1940s to rescue Darwin’s views on natural selection from growing theoretical problems.  It incorporated the necessity of genetic mutations to provide the raw material for variation on which natural selection acts. This revision was necessary when the rediscovery of Mendel’s laws of inheritance ruled out ideas of blending inheritance, showing instead that inherited characters were based on discrete entities (genes) that were passed on unaltered to the offspring.


To test neo-Darwinian evolution in a microcosm, Rafael Sanjuán, Andrés Moya, and Santiago F. Elena worked with RNA viruses: organisms with a small, compact genomes that should respond quickly and noticeably to mutations. The team was looking for epistatic interactions: i.e., the effects of multiple independent (non-allelic) mutations on each other, rather than the effects of single mutations alone. These interactions can be antagonistic or synergistic: they can work against one another or with one another. Epistasis is defined as “any interaction of nonallelic genes, especially the suppression by one gene of the effect of a nonallelic gene.” Of note in this paper are the opening lines in the abstract that tell how rarely this important concept has been studied before (this is science-speak for never):


The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored.


Let’s picture a 2×2 grid. On the left side, label the rows “beneficial” and “deleterious.” On the top, label the columns “synergistic” and “antagonistic.” Now put two dots in each box, with the dots representing mutations that will interact with one another.



The Spanish team performed two classes of experiments to measure the effects of epistasis on mutations and they did not find a single example of beneficial and synergistic mutations. 


The researchers found that beneficial mutations do not add up, even in the best of circumstances.


Neo-Darwinian theory assumes that beneficial mutations act independently, but the team found that of the eight actual best-case scenarios (two beneficial mutations working antagonistically, since none worked synergistically) over half decreased the total fitness of the result from what would be expected if the beneficial mutations acted alone.


In conclusion, they caution evolutionary modelers to realize that they can no longer merely assume fitness gains (if any) add up.


In other words, there is no single scientific proof to support fish to fishermen, bacteria to bats, and hyenas to humans.


The Coccyx: The Darwin cult ignores biological reality to push its religious doctrine

We never had a tail......

Bookmark and Share



‘Vestigial organs’ are still taught in schools, as ‘proof’ of Darwin’s religion of fish becoming fishermen, or tulips mutating into gender-bendering Teachers.  There is no mathematical possibility that a fish can become a reptile; a reptile a bird; or an ape a human.  The changes to software code called DNA would number in the billions and software systems do not magically produce more code and functionality by themselves.  Darwinian theology is a religion not a science.


From Jerry Bergman’s ‘Useless Organs: the coccyx or end of the spinal column, is always paraded by the Evolution-cult as an example of primate to human transformation.  This is anti-science and anti-biology.


…human coccyx bones were interpreted as the last remnants of this tail and are, therefore, vestigial.  Specifically, Darwin claimed that the “os coccyx in man, though functionless as a tail, plainly represents this part in other vertebrate animals.” The coccyx was judged vestigial by Darwin primarily because of its size and location. This claim has been uncritically repeated since Darwin.


Darwin’s theory about the coccyx is based on ignorance.  The coccyx is composed of three to five (usually four) nodular pieces of fused vertebral bones at the lowest part of the vertebral column. It is the terminus point of our backbone and is designed perfectly for this role.  Its major function is as an attachment site for the series of interconnected muscle fibres and tissues that support the bladder neck, urethra, uterus, rectum, and a set of structures that form a bowl-shaped muscular floor, collectively called the pelvic diaphragm. Without the proper design of the coccyx you would not be able to walk, and your organs in and around the central ventricle of the body would likely fail. 


For example, muscles attached to the coccyx serve several important functions.  The cocygeus muscle, which is inserted by its base into the margin of the coccyx and into the side of the last section of the sacrum, helps to support the posterior organs of the pelvic floor, especially during forced expiration, such as in elimination.  The coccyx muscle system expands and contracts during urination and bowel movements, and also distends to help enlarge the birth canal during childbirth.


Without the coccyx and its attached muscle system, humans would need a very different support system for their internal organs requiring numerous design changes in the human posterior.


Another issue for the Darwin-cult, is that none of the supposed ‘near simian relatives’ of humans have a tail.  All of the major primates lack tails.  The ones that do possess a tail are the cat-like lemurs and tarsiers.


Ignorance is not science.