Evolution and the Ape Man lie

Monkeying around

 

Monkeys to Men, in just 5 or 6 million years! Apes supposedly ‘evolved’ some 40 million years ago from the magic lab of ‘Evolution’. About 5-6 million years ago a fork from the ape genus developed and eventually ‘evolved’ to become the distinct Homo Sapiens species some 100.000 to 200.000 years ago. ‘Settled science’, everyone knows, teacher say, BBC say.

The difference between Humans and apes or chimps, or between wolves which pace ‘The Science’ apparently ‘evolved’ into whales, runs into the many billions of DNA letters. This simplistic view of massive complexity and design is astounding. There is no direct path from the simple to the complex.

In science the opposite is true. There is route of decomposition from the complex to the simple, as organisms decay and entropy or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics takes hold. Simple parts do not unite through a materialist process, to form the complex whole. There is no evidence that this can happen with individuals or species, nor within components of individuals. A bacterium’s flagella for example, or the human brain, are not formed in pieces, parts or over time. It is all or nothing.  More here

====

The great French Mathematician Schützenberger, knew Darwinism was a false idol

“The greatest kindess one can render for any man is to lead him to the truth.” St. Thomas Aquinas

Maths and Logic

 

One of the most influential French mathematicians in the past 100 years was Marcel-Paul Schützenberger [1920-1996], and he was  a Darwin Doubter. In fact he was publicly quite antagonistic to the cult of evergreens-became-the-screaming-mad climate 'expert'. He also specialized in complex nano-technology and mathematical computer simulations, merged together into something termed 'Combinatorics'. He knew that neither math nor technology could possibly support the outrageous tales made by the cult of Darwin.

“The evolution of living creatures appears to require an essential ingredient, a specific form of organization. Whatever it is, it lies beyond anything that our present knowledge of physics or chemistry might suggest; it is a property upon which formal logic sheds absolutely no light. Whether gradualists or saltationists, Darwinians have too simple a conception of biology, rather like a locksmith improbably convinced that his handful of keys will open any lock. Darwinians, for example, tend to think of the gene rather as if it were the expression of a simple command: do this, get that done, drop that side chain. Walter Gehring's work on the regulatory genes controlling the development of the insect eye reflects this conception. The relevant genes may well function this way, but the story on this level is surely incomplete, and Darwinian theory is not apt to fill in the pieces.” (Interview Origins and Design 17:2)

Wither Wistar

 

Schützenberger's work supported the now obvious and confirmed conclusion that random mutations consistently produce degeneration, not ‘progress’. In fact not one single positive mutation can be named by the Darwinists. No entry exists for positive mutations, cited by Darwinists as changes in the genomic code to take a flat worm, to a fat man.  More here

===

'Darwin’s Bluff' by R. F. Shedinger. The Mystery of the book that Darwin never finished

R. F. Shedinger has written a very interesting book on aspects of Darwin’s life and philosophy that most people are unaware of.  In schools and the mainstream (fake news) media, you get the usual hagiography, much as you do with quacks and criminals such as Jenner or Pasteur, or the anti-reality philosophers like Einstein.  Maybe it is time that people had a critical look at the theology of Darwinism and its utter paucity of proofs or logic.  There is nothing scientific about evolution.  

The Philosopher

 

There are many frauds in the history of science.  God-like status has been given to many men, who were plagiarisers, liars, cheats, con-artists, second-rate philosophers, quacks and who provided no mechanical-objective-replicable proof for their ideas.  Many if not most famous scientists including Galileo, Newton, Michelson, Morley, Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins and Darwin all belong within this spectrum to some extent, to name but a favoured few.  Aspects of some of their work might be scientific or relevant, but much of what is accepted as ‘science’ is simply gibberish.  More here