Darwin Nonsense

150 years ago Chuck Darwin wrote a book about his THEORY that Hashem doesn't exist and that everything is here, including all living things, by accident.   You may not think that was his actual purpose but knowing his colleagues that supported his effort and the popularity that he would gain from such an undertaking, I believe it was his foremost motive.  He came up with such wonderful expressions as natural selection, meaning that nature has some way to just, out of necessity, design itself.  With the help of mutations that occur in nature, all the species of plants, animals and even human beings just happened.  Chuck stated that after about 100 years of gathering fossils, scientists would be able to document the links between the species proving the evolutionary pattern.  He also stated that he can explain everything except the eye.  The eye was way too complicated and sophisticated to have possibly evolved by natural selection.

Well, here it is 150 years later and the only thing that has been proven is how stupid scientists, governments and the education system can be.

Let's review what was proposed as a theory and what has actually been proven.  First of all, it is so convenient that just about none of Chuck's theory can be proven.  To prove it evolved by accident instead of being created by a Source of infinite intelligence comes down to personal opinion – not scientific verification.   But, let's look at what Chuck told us to observe and what the outcome really was. 

He said:  After about 100 years of fossil collection, we will see the connection.  Well, after 150 years of fossil collection we have seen no connection.  Even worse is the total lack of necessary intermediate stages that were needed to complete the picture.  As an example, when did we go from cold blooded sea creatures to warm blooded land creatures?  Shouldn't we find million of years of intermediate species making the transition?  Another concern: when did we go from scales and fins to skin with hair?   Shouldn't we find million of years of intermediate species making the transition?  The biggest thing that was lacking was intelligence.

The entire concept of natural selection ran into a problem.  Paleontologists performed statistical analysis determining how long it would take for an organism to form and start to improve or redesign itself.  I am not talking about the trillions of parts to all plants, animals, insects, bacteria, humans, etc; they wanted to guestimate how long any one improvement would take.  The answer was anywhere from maybe 20 billion years to never.  Since the Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years, the whole concept of natural selection becomes unworkable.  Of course, there is a Dr Burke who theorized accelerated evolution.  Most scientist believe this theory to be far fetched.  I see it as a lame attempt at proving that evolution is not bogus.  To me it is like saying that an individual is very unhealthy because he is sick all the time or that an individual is very poor strictly because he doesn't have any money.  That explains it all.

 

But wait, we also have the process of mutation to enhance evolution.  One problem is mutation is basically a degrading reaction.  When two chemicals are mixed together and the resultant compound is a mutation, it means the reaction resulted in something less than what was available to begin with not something enhanced.  Mutation has the same effect on organisms and could never be used to explain evolved or improved results.

An interesting event that happens every day is that new species of plants, animals, bugs, etc. are found.  Biologists, botanists, mishagologists (I think I just made up a new species of scientist) scratch their heads not just because of new species, but that they don't even seem to have a forerunner that they may have evolved from.   What a new species that didn't show signs of evolution?  Hashem has a sense of humor – no doubt about it.

Darwin couldn't explain the eye.  Way too complicated for it being self-designed.  What would have been Chuck's reaction if he knew about the cell structure especially the computerized genetic code in the cells of every living organism?  I would hope he would have abandoned his nonsensical effort realizing there could be no truth to it.  I was an Engineer in industry for about 38 years and I never saw anything simple design itself let alone something of infinite complexity.  Does anyone realize that, to this day, we still, even with our great intelligence, have not been able to create life?   What the brilliant scientists have accomplished with amino acids is bearskins and knives compared to real life.  We may give a farmer complete credit for making apples but all that was done was to take a seed, that we are not able to create, put it in the ground and watch Hashem's miracle come to life.  Out of a piece of wood comes a beautiful red, juicy, delicious apple and that happened by accident?  Did you ever pay attention to an apple?  It is the size of our hands, it is attractive to the eye (only on the outside where the attractiveness is needed – the inside of the skin doesn't have the colorful advertising), it is very nutritious to the need of a human being – one a day keep the doctor away.  It is a very satisfying treat with just the right moisture, taste and appeal (you can even eat the peal).  The variety of apples is staggering meeting all kinds of taste and cooking requirements (even though the brilliant geneticists have eliminated many species for financial gain – more brilliance).  As an Engineer I am so impressed with the design of a single apple that to think that this happened by accident is lunacy.  

There are millions of examples of species that cannot be explained by natural selection.  I remember a particular bug that I heard about years ago (I don't remember the name -- I'm not a bugologist).  This bug protected itself by squirting two chemicals, that becomes very lethal when mixed, at its predator  and renders him non-functional (a polite way of saying he kills his enemies).  The two chemicals are in individual sacks within the bug and are both dangerous to the bug itself.  The bug, however, is protected by the design of the sacks.  I thought about how this sophisticated system could have evolved accidentally.  Maybe the bug himself went to a chemical store and purchased the two chemicals after getting advice from a PHD bug friend that he had.  If I am sounding silly, you are catching on.  I don't know if I could have engineered such a complicated system; let alone, envisioning this happening over millions or billions of years by accident.  Besides how did this species of bug survive until the final Research and Development stage had been completed and the lethal system went into operation?

One question is: what about all the human-like species that have been unearthed over in the past century?   Do they not fall into Chuckey's theory even if we can't find a definite connection?  It is brought down in scriptures that Moses was of the 1000^th generation.  Since there were only 26 generations from Adam to Moses, we are told that there were 974 human-like generations before Adam but that they were not human beings – just human-like.  Since science hasn't found that many prehistoric beings, it looks like the handbook of the universe has the answer again that scientists needs to catch up to.  Science always seems to be lagging behind.  Of course, we cheated we read the book.  All the details about the 974 generations are extensive and may be handled in a future blog (I haven't decided yet.  If I didn't say this, the questions would have been many).  I believe that the Mitochondrial DNA that is common to all human beings did not appear in the first 974 generations meaning they are not our ancestors.  Minor point happily ignored by science and atheists.

You may get from all this that I have very little respect for Chuck Darwin.  I would say on a scale of 1 to 10, I would give a rating of about -245.  Sorry Charley (there's something fishy about that statement).  I never met him personally but I'm sure he was and still is a Hell of a guy.  I know that materialistic atheists, who hang onto his nonsense, are a Hell of a group.  I would stay away from them – their future is not too promising. 

What did Darwin do and why did he become so popular?  Darwin wrote a theory that explains everything without Hashem.  The atheists of his day made him an instant success.  But why should this bogus science continue to this day when everything said has been disproved or determined to be impossible to prove?  The basic answer is in my post of 28 March 2012 called Jew Hatred.  The people of the world are fighting Hashem.  They do not want His message and will resort to any fantasy to avoid the truth.  Why do the governments of many countries including the wonderful US of A insist that everything has to be done with a separation of church and state (I guess that means synagogue and state, also)?  To avoid the truth about this world even the education system in most countries have to avoid anything that may look like religion.  I think the motto of all public schools should be "Don't confuse me with the truth!!!" 

The biggest reason that I know that Darwin and his nonsensical theory is not worth the paper it was printed on is that it disagrees with Torah which I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is the absolute truth.  Any deviation from Torah on any point is a deviation from truth.  It is only fare to mention that there actually is an evolutionary pattern mentioned in scriptures, but under complete controlled of the Creator of everything.  Any mention of by accident is heresy and will get the individual a very unpleasant eternity.  This is not a good time in history to gamble with ones eternity – our day in court is not too far away and that could evolve into much suffering.  Stay with Hashem – stay with the truth; that is my natural selection.