RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Gab@StFerdinandIII -

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 


Cult of Darwin - Recent Articles

Epigenetics. Another Darwin fail.

The religion of Evolution is having a tough time finding any proof whatsoever.

Bookmark and Share

Adaptation is internal, not external, yet another paper confirms.  For the Religion of Darwin, a theological mantra is ‘adaptation proves evolution’.  As if having more hair or less hair is proof of fish to fishermen.  Neo-Darwinism uses the magic of random mutations (almost all mutations are neutral or negative, so you would regress not progress) cites the environment as a key “driver” of adaptation. The newer science of epigenetics makes bunk of this.  Internal factors “tune” the genome to its surroundings quickly, without waiting for some “beneficial random mutation” to arrive, delivered by Chuckie’s magic mutation fairy.


Epigenetic matching of the genome to environmental constraints is very different from Neo-Darwinism because it locates adaptation internally instead of externally. Our bodies possess an internal engineering process, a supra-layer of genetic interactions which allow modifications of genes and erases the Darwinian miracle of the personal God of natural selection, who according to the religion of Evolution, picks winners and losers based on chance or fitness (natural selection). 


One Sequence, Many Variations

(The Scientist, 5 Oct 2022).

At the Van Andel Institute, researchers have a new take on what makes animals and plants adapt to their environment. It’s called epigenetics, “above the genes.” Andrew Pospisilik is a founding member of the VAI’s Metabolic and Nutritional Programming group. “Pospisilik explores the epigenetic changes that give organisms the plasticity to change in response to their environments.”


For years, scientists have been fascinated with how DNA mutations impart phenotypic changes. However, epigeneticists including Andrew Pospisilik think mutations are responsible for only a portion of the variation present in all organisms. Epigenetic changes from molecules attaching to DNA and histones—proteins that compact DNA into chromatin—and other factors that modulate gene expression allow organisms the flexibility to change according to their environment. These changes can be inherited, altering the phenotypes of future generations in the absence of mutations.


DNA is tightly wound around chromatin, affecting access to genes by transcription factors and polymerases.


To the extent this happens, it represents a very different picture from classic Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism places all phenotypic change in random mutations—mistakes in the genes, whether from cosmic rays, copying errors or other undirected sources—and claims that only those that are mildly “beneficial” will be inherited, while the vast majority are deleterious or neutral.


According to  Pospisilik organisms can get many variations from one sequence, applying epigenetic factors built into the cell’s internal operations (e.g., regulatory elements). Mutations cannot tell the whole story, he continues. “For example, identical twins are not always identical.”


These factors exist within the epigenome to give flexibility to organisms placed in new environments.  If variations are resulting from within the organism, they are not the consequence of mutations.


Another Darwin fail.



Key model used in 200.000+ 'studies' supporting Darwin's cult is a fraud

Fraudulent models and torturing data is de-facto practice in 'science'

Bookmark and Share

What Is Fraud? - University of Southern Indiana



This is bad news for the cult of evolution.  Flawed, if not criminally deficient models underpin the evolution cult and the cult of the climate and ‘warming’.  There is no man-made climate crisis from the emissions of a trace chemical called plant food.  There is also no evidence, observational, factual, laboratory or modelled, to support the religion of Darwin.  One of the cult’s major platforms used in over 200.000 papers to support ‘evolutionary theory’, when actually investigated, is found fraudulent.  This is no surprise.  The cult of evolution has committed hundreds of criminal acts of deceit and mendacity.  No surprise that their main ‘model’ is a scam.


Study reveals flaws in popular genetic method (Lund University, 30 Aug 2022).


Dr. Eran Elhaik, Associate Professor in molecular cell biology at Lund University, has analysed a model used in 60 years’ worth of genetic studies. The main method and logic within this model is called Principle Component Analysis (PCA), and it is a fraud.




The most common analytical method within population genetics is deeply flawed, according to a new study from Lund University in Sweden. This may have led to incorrect results and misconceptions about ethnicity and genetic relationships. The method has been used in hundreds of thousands of studies, affecting results within medical genetics and even commercial ancestry tests The study is published in Scientific Reports.


Between 32,000 and 216,000 scientific articles in genetics alone have employed PCA for exploring and visualizing similarities and differences between individuals and populations and based their conclusions on these results.


The source paper is open access for all to read and gasp at the implications. Elhaik, “Principal Component Analyses (PCA)-based findings in population genetic studies are highly biased and must be re-evaluated,”

Nature Scientific Reports volume 12, Article number: 14683 (2022).  All the buzzwords used to support Darwin’s religion within 200.000 plus ‘studies’ are thereby fraudulent.  They are premised on a purposefully built method to generate supporting evidence when none exist. 


PCA’s widespread use could not have been achieved without several key traits that distinguish it from other tools—all tied to the replicability crisis. PCA can be applied to any numerical dataset, small or large, and it always yields results. It is parameter-free and nearly assumption-free. It does not involve measures of significance, effect size evaluations, or error estimates. It is, by large, a “black box” harbouring complex calculations that cannot be traced.




PCA serves as the primary tool to identify the origins of ancient samples in paleogenomics, to identify biomarkers for forensic reconstruction in evolutionary biology, and geolocalize samples.


PCA outcomes are used to shape study design, identify, and characterize individuals and populations, and draw historical and ethnobiological conclusions on origins, evolution, dispersion, and relatedness.


It is used to examine the population structure of a cohort or individuals to determine ancestry, analyze the demographic history and admixture, decide on the genetic similarity of samples and exclude outliers, decide how to model the populations in downstream analyses, describe the ancient and modern genetic relationships between the samples, infer kinship, identify ancestral clines in the data, e.g., Refs.16,17,18,19, detect genomic signatures of natural selection, e.g., Ref.20 and identify convergent evolution.


You can manipulate data any way you want within a black-box model.  All such models, their code, logic, rules and their source data need to be reviewed by people who understand statistics, and IT system development.  ‘Trusting’ the ‘science’ is naïve.  Following the money is more likely to lead you to truth than ‘trusting’ black box sources with endless rhetoric and tautologies.



The Three Pillars of Evolution Demolished, by Jerry Bergman

Why Darwin was wrong

Bookmark and Share

There is not much science in the philosophical cult of Evolution.  In fact, none.  The ‘pillars’ of Evolution do not hold up to scrutiny or scientific evaluation.  This book is a comprehensive guide which uses known science to bring down and set fire to the pillars of Darwin’s cult.  It is an easy read, some 300 pages with about 50 pages of sources along with footnotes within the text.  It is very well researched and supported and written by a man with impeccable scientific and literary credentials.  What are the 3 pillars that J. Bergman eviscerates?

“…1) chemical evolution or abiogenesis, 2) mutations to provide the raw material of evolution, and 3) natural selection to ‘select’ advantageous traits provided by random mutations….these three pillars of evolution are not based on empirical scientific evidence, rather they are disproved by scientific evidence.” 

As J. Bergman details, none of the pillars withstands even a cursory investigation. 

1-Chemical Evolution

-Spontaneous generation has been disproven many times dating from the early 17th century (Harvey, Redi, Spallanzani, Pasteur).  Animate life cannot be formed from the inanimate.  Darwin believed in abiogenesis and was ignorant of science which destroyed this theory, philosophising that spontaneous generation would be proven by some future ‘natural law’. 

-Chemical evolution is a chimera like abiogenesis.  No proof, no experiment, no observation has even come close to demonstrating the enormous complexity of life, not even a single cell, nor a single protein arrangement, let alone DNA or RNA, not to mention the dependency on ATP and enzymes, all from nothing but a chemical soup.  Bergman spends many pages on this and illustrates with real science why chemical evolution is impossible.

-The failed 1954 Miller-Urey experiment (lab, contrived, producing a few dead amino acids) simply confirms the obvious that life cannot be borne out of simple electrified compounds, in a warm pond.  Contaminants, oxygen (which degrades DNA, RNA) and a million other issues are apparent with such a simplistic approach to the incredible complexity of organisms. 

-Chemical evolutionists cannot produce, even in contrived labs, proteins ex nihilo or from a chemical cocktail, self-forming, comprised of 150 amino acids with left-handed chirality.  The human body possesses thousands of proteins and enzymes (exact number is unknown). 

-For a protein with a chain of 500 amino acids the number of possible linear arrangements is 20300 or 10650.  There are 1080 atoms in the universe.  1 chance in 1050 is considered impossible.  There is no possibility of producing even a single protein by ‘chance’.  None.


-Mutations don’t add functionality, most are neutral, the rest negative, decreasing functionality and leading eventually (after a certain mutational load is achieved) to extinction.

-Given that mutations degrade functionality, there is de-volution, not e-volution.

-There is no known or proven means of producing the significant genetic variations that molecule to human evolution necessitates.

-Mutations are the major cause of diseases including heart diseases and cancers.  More than 17000 diseases are listed, up from 1500 in 1966.

-Total number of mutations in the human genome is increasing in each generation (some 40-50 per generation).

-3 % of DNA or 6 inches of the 6 feet of DNA you have in each cell, is coding, 97% is control and administration.  There is no junk DNA. 

-Sexual reproduction is always a problem for Darwinists given its complexity, its design does however, slow down mutations by recombining DNA and slowing down the development of mutational loads.

-Modern medicine can extend those who are ill with high mutational loads and allow them to reproduce which enables the increase in overall genomic degradation.  Darwin opposed vaccination for this reason, stating that weak or ill children needed to die from smallpox in order to prevent them from reproducing (in actual fact the smallpox vaccination killed far more children than it ‘saved’).

-Aging is an example of mutation accumulation and the genome itself ages.

-In large scale experiments with bacteria and viruses, researchers found that even over 30 years of breeding these creatures did not ‘evolve’ but fluctuated at best around a species mean or degraded and lost functionality.

3-Natural Selection

-Acknowledged as the main contribution of Darwin to evolutionary theory but was in fact a very ancient idea, which Darwin popularised by using Herbert Spencer’s ‘survival of the fittest’ to describe a dialectical process of species development.

-Basically, all Darwin did was to apply human breeding techniques to nature and give ‘natural selection’ the role of nature’s breeder.

-Darwin never explained the arrival of the fittest, or the origins of any species.

-Darwin retreated to the discredited theories of Lamarck which postulated that biological characteristics acquired during a lifetime are passed on to the offspring (an entirely absurd idea, for example a weightlifter passing muscle size to his children).

-There are obviously clear limits for each species to size, weight, speed, height and other characteristics. Darwin believed in unlimited variation and combination.  Animals only procreate within their own species and within defined limits.  Horses cannot be bred to grow wings for example.

-Survival of the fittest does not mean ‘progress’, since it conserves what is known and is best described as the culling of the sick, ill and old (disease, still births, age, bad luck, competition, predators).

-Clearly good luck and happenstance are as important in survival as being ‘fit’ which cannot and is never defined (how is a sloth fit?).

-Fossils do not support macro-evolution, and there are no missing links.

All of Darwin’s ‘pillars’ are analysed in detail.  They are indeed demolished by J. Bergman.  Evolution and Darwinism is not a ‘science’ but a philosophy and an approach to historical biology.  None of the ideas from the 19th century or 20th century are particularly novel or unique.  One can read them in Aristotle, Epicurus, Lucretius, Paracelsus and even Descartes.  Evolution has a long history and pedigree of being ineffably wrong, unscientific and an obstacle to real scientific progress.