The false promise of Darwinism

Evolution, as is present taught in the western world, was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Anaxiamander (~600 B.C.) and the Roman philosopher Lucretius (~100 B.C.) whom believed that all living things where related to each other and changed over time – all Hindu religion do so to. Darwinist and neo-Darwinist expanded on these thoughts and adopted the view that we’re nothing more than freak accidents of blind and senseless probabilistic Nature where all, besides the speed of light, are acclaimed variables.

The mechanism that is proposed today to explain all the variations we see within the animate entities is natural selection and the blind time-chance error mechanism of Draconian mutations. Darwin reasoned among these lines; if humans can breed a race of fast running horses by simply separating the fast running horses from the slow running ones and only allow the fast ones to interbreed for different generations, than the human agent could easily be replaced by mother Nature, that although operates thru slower processes, produces much more marvelous results through the magic hand of time.

Unfortunately, what is overlooked here is that humans can often do to Nature what Nature cannot always do to Herself; neither can humans always do what Nature can do by Herself because of the gigantic forces and amounts of stuff that are often involved in these processes. In a sense we might say that Nature lacks guiding power and humans lack scaling power.

Beside that, the term ‘natural selection’, which plays such fundamental role in Darwinism of all kind, is a misleading term that often induces people in error because it gives us falsely the impression that Nature has selection capabilities, a little bit in the same way as a farmer can separate the wheat from the chaff. Yet, may it be clear that Nature doesn’t have any selection ability at all, nor does it favor one entity above the other, it’s just that the entities that are more flexible in their adaptive capabilities to deal with environmental pressures and conditions score better in their self-performability; claiming otherwise is foolish.

Darwinists of all kind often confuse adaptation with progression; however, given that Nature is secondary in nature we can only speak of progression in beings if the change is beneficial for their projected being – e.g. one of the adaptations to war is to live in bunkers, but is this progressive for the human being to flourish?

Let us delve a little bit deeper in the claims of Darinism by shinning some light on accepted data by secular science.

According to today’s science planet Earth is expected to be 4.6 billion years old (1 billion = 1×10^9) and it took the planet 0.5 billion years to cool down to the point where its crust could solidify and atmosphere, oceans, rivers and pools could form. It’s further claimed that the oldest fossilized bacteria (cyanobacteria or blue-green algae) found on Earth is approximately 3.5 billion years old while the more complex single life forms (simple prokaryotic cells) arose 1.8 billion years ago. We are also instructed, without any evidence, that the first prehistoric life probably appeared 4.15 billion years ago.

In table hereunder we have reproduced this data.

Table Darwinism in question

Nevertheless, it’s important to note that the organized functional complexity of the simplest known cell is much, much more complicate than the most complicate matter-particle known to mankind ‘the neutron’, which, according to quantum physicists, is only composed of 3 quarks. If we further compare the organized functional complexity of a neutron with a cyanobacteria (a simple prokaryotic cell) and the cyanobacteria with the simplest eukaryotic cell known to mankind than we have to admit that the organized functional complexity between matter-particles and cyanobacteria is of exceeding higher order than the difference between the prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells.

Besides that, matter-particles lack the Neo-Darwinian error-chance mechanism of Draconian mutation, which makes the difference between inanimate and animate entities all the bigger.

From this light it becomes very difficult to explain why it took prokaryotic life 2 billion years to become eukaryotic, while it took Nature just 350 million years to produce primordial cells, and 700 million years to produce prokaryotic life from matter-particles. Not to mention that for the first 350 million years there could not be mention of the Neo-Darwinian time-chance error mechanism of draconian evolution that increases improbable probability through mutations, and that if planet Earth really evolved as scientific materialists profess than the appearance of life, during this period of Earth’s evolutionary history, would due to the harsh conditions of early Earth (high temperatures…toxic atmospheres), probably be far less suitable than the subsequent 2 billion years; making all this claims more ridiculous than ever.

Honest now, would it in the light of probability alone not be more plausible that going from the inanimate to the animate would require more time than going from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryotic cell?

Of course, you could always say that a greater probability of something to happen doesn’t necessarily imply that it will actually occur faster than the lesser probability; nevertheless, if we look to other probability events of Darwinian evolution theory, then most, if not all events, always require this special treatment, that’s to say, the neo-Darwinian time-chance error mechanisms of draconion evolution do not only require extremely low probabilities to function but require also always the less probable low probability to happen.

To our understanding only absurdities can have such features!

 

What can we learn from the observational facts?

In in the last decennia numerous experiments have been conducted on simple fast multiplying bacteria, especially on Echerichia-coli, to see if neo-Darwinian time-chance error mechanisms of draconion evolution can account for speciation. These E-coli bacteria were submitted to all kind of situations that Nature could come-up with, such as: radiation (X-rays, UV-light), excessive temperatures, electricity, magnetism, pressure… chemicals.

Guess what?

It’s pretty safe to say that mostly bad or useless mutants resulted from it. Similar experiments were performed with fruit flies ‘drosophila’ which delivered the same disappointing results.

Furthermore, Louis Pasteur in several experiments clearly demonstrated that fermentation is caused by the growth of micro-organisms, and the emergent growth of bacteria in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation (life being generated from non-life), but rather by biogenesis, that’s to say ‘we need life to generate life’, in other words, the whole idea of spontaneous generation is intellectual bankrupt.

Life, as advance in microbiology shows, is not simply the result of a bunch of chemicals combining together under the right environmental pressures and conditions to form a living whole, but requires in some stage agency to make it all possible.

Based on all these undeniable observational facts it’s sufficient, for anyone using his/her commonsense for what it was intended to do, to classify Darwinism in all its forms, on observable grounds, as delusional science. Of course there’re much more decisive grounds and observational facts out there that will give a final blow to intellectual Darwinism but allow us to work step wise.

Godinci cannot allow delusional science to tell us what Nature and life is all about and therefore rejects Darwinism all together.

This post is also available in: Romanian, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish