David Wolfe on Darwinism and Evolution

“As the creation myth of scientific naturalism, Darwinism plays an indispensable ideological role in the war against fundamentalism. For that reason, the scientific organizations are devoted to protecting Darwinism than testing it, and the rules for scientific investigation have been shaped to help them succeed” (Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial)

Implicit in Darwinism is the “common ancestor” idea, which sounds great to a materialistic mind, but is not supported by the fossil record. The common ancestor idea contains science (quantifiable similarities between species) and the philosophical deduction that they share a common ancestor – which has not empirically been shown.

What of “survival of the fittest”? the philosopher Nietzsche pointed out that survival of the fittest happens, but is meaningless most of the time, because the vast majority of organisms do not fight, do not kill for food and do not complete for territory in such a way that cause competitors to die out.

Why is it that the “lower” forms (e.g. the horseshoe crab), those which are simpler (less fit?) have not died out, and have not yielded to the principle of evolution? They remain in the same form they have had for vast expanses of the fossil record. Why do they not “evolve” into something “higher”?

Quantum physics is telling us things do not change slowly over time – they make quantum leaps. We jump from one level of experience to another.

The most conclusive refutation of evolution is furnished by palaeontology.

We also do not find any genetic mistakes (one-shot mutations which failed) in the fossil record which is impossible if random mutation through natural section (trial and error) is true.

Liberally billions of these fossils have been found (ammonites), but never have there been discovered any transition types, or smooth transitions, between any of these 14 types.

Think about it logically, if there were gradual evolution, in the adaptation sense of the world, there could not be specific animal classes, but only a chaos of living singular forms left over from some “struggle for existence”.

Evolutionists continue to argue the tired line that humans smoothly transitioned from one form to another, and assume modern Homo sapiens arose merely 100,000 to 200,000 years ago (based on the present questionable dating system). In December 1997, Discover magazine reported the findings of a Spanish team working in Gran Dolina, Spain who uncovered an 800,000 year-old skull with remarkably modern features. The discoverer, Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, stated, “It is so surpring we must rethink human evolution to fit that face.”

Neo-Darwinism (the present-day evolution philosophy) has chosen the common ancestor idea as the key to understanding the relationship between the great classes of living beings. This is a philosophical deduction based on materialistic misconceptions and is not a fact. If neo-Darwinists truly wanted to be scientific, they would have to define the common ancestry idea as an empirical fact rather than as a “logical” deduction from material classifications of species.

One eminent scientist of the mid-twentieth century, who concluded the theory of evolution had fallen apart, was the geneticist Professor Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley. In his book, Darwin On Trial, Philipp Callahan describes Goldschmidt’s now-famous challenge to the neo-Darwinists, listing a series of complex structures, from mammalian hair to haemoglobin, which he concluded could not have been produced by the accumulation and selection of small mutations. Goldschmidt described how the idea that an accumulation of micromutations could lead to new organs and species is a mathematical impossibility.

Natural selection is the most famous mechanism that can cause biological adjustments in organisms, but it may not be the most important element. Other factors that cause changes in species include: directed mutation and/or geographic morphism.

(...) within each landscape, the forms of plants and animals have local characteristics that can be, and often are, picked up by transplants of plant and animal strains and stocks from other landscapes. For example, in the 19th century it was discovered that for any given inhabited area of the world there was an average cephalic index (the ratio on the greatest breadth of the head to its length from front to back) of the human population. More important, it was learned, through measurements on immigrants to America from all over Europe, and on the American-born offspring, that this cephalic index corresponds to the geographical location, and immediately makes itself manifest in the new generation. Thus long-headed Sephardic Jewish people and short-headed Ashkenazi Jewish people, after arriving in America, produced offspring with a specifically American cephalic index.

From intuitive observation, it is apparent that the landscape exerts an influence on the plant and animal life within its bounds. The mechanism of this influence is beyond our scientific understanding at this time. The source of it, however, we know: it is the cosmic unity of the totality of things, a unity that shows itself in the rhythmic and cyclic movement of Nature.

en feuilletant le livre Paramagnetism : Rediscovering Nature's Secret Force of Growth (http://www.amazon.com/Paramagnetism-Rediscovering-Natures-Secret-Growth/dp/0911311491/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245614913&sr=1-1), regardez ce qu'y lis:

(...) a great book on soil formation by Charles Darwin titled The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Actions of Worms, with Observations of Their Habits. This book shines with Darwin's aura of genius, unlike his treatrise on the unprovable theory of evolution. God probably has a hundred different ways of creating life, evolution being only one among many. Like creationism, it is a reductionist either/or science. Because Darwin, like von Liebig and other biological chemists, overlooked the elegant work of the "two Ts" - John Tyndell and Nikola Tesla - he failed miserably in his understanding of natural forces.

affraid

emportée par ma passion de la recherche et déçue de ne rien trouver d'intéressant à ma bibliothèque, j'ai lu un roman (!!) qui s'appelle La Conspiration Darwin qui raconte que Darwin aurait trouvé son inspiration chez des chamans fuégiens lors de ses périples. pas fou, ça..... mais si c'est le cas, il doit avoir sérieusement changé le cap du chaman... ça me donne presque envie de lire sa biographie... Shocked

Messages : 1343 Date d'inscription : 01/12/2008

La biographie du chaman ou de Darwin? scratch

trop drôle.... MDR

le chaman, cette blague! keskej'ai à faire de la vie de Darwin, après tout???? y a passé sa vie à être malade!!!!!!!!! y aurait mieux fait de se ramener le chaman ou de rester avec lui!!!!!!!! pleure de rire

Messages : 1343 Date d'inscription : 01/12/2008

En tout cas, sa théorie aurait peut-être amélioré.... scratch

» David Wolfe on B12
» David Wolfe on Raw Dairy
» David Wolfe on Allergies
» David Wolfe on Nuts
» David Wolfe on Enzymes