In the Origin of Species, Darwin wrote: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

Let us now state, if not “fully,” at least many of the facts and arguments against Darwinism.  Such discussions are instantly censored and harshly criticized in virtually every biology department in America, in blatant contradiction of Darwin himself.

________________________

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die…..” – Max Planck

Never was this truer than in the subject of Darwinism.

The Insuperable Statistics of Naturalistic Polypeptide Synthesis

Titin is the largest protein in the human body. It consists of 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence.  The first naturalistic synthesis, whether stepwise or in one single, continuous process, consisted of “selecting” 1 out of 20 amino acids which make up humans, 38,138 times in succession, or 1/20 to the 38,138th power.   This is equal to 1 in 10 to the 49,618th power.   The pretense of claiming that “sections” of any protein were “assembled” overlooks the unassailable fact that any “section,” however small, had to be assembled under the same statistical constraints.  Whether one does the computations in one step or 1,000 steps, the figures are beyond dispute.  They get a great deal worse, in fact.

Only Levorotary (left-handed)  amino acids were used, not Dextrorotary (right-handed) amino acids, so 1 in 10 to the 49,618th power has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 38,138th power or 1 in 10 to the 11,480th power.  One more time for all consecutive peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, thus 1/2 to the 38,138th power.  The product of these three essential elements of original Titin synthesis is 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578th power (not counting whatever calculation is appropriate for the precise folding of the chain).

 Finally, “selection,” that magic word Darwin so popularized, demands that at each successive step, there must be some advantage conferred, otherwise the random mutation cannot prevail and multiply.  No one has ever proposed any original synthesis with breakdowns of thousands of intermediaries and each of their “selective” advantages.

Titin is only one of more than 20,000 polypeptides (proteins and enzymes) in the human body.

Pseudoscientific sophisticates claim that large proteins were “assembled” from smaller component blocks.  Sorry, that does not obviate the requisite statistics, it attempts to wave them away.  Every smaller component still was the result of arbitrary picking of the correct amino acid out of 20 different possibilities, in L form, with a peptide bond, and precise folding.

As a means of comparing a number as enormous as 20 to the 38,138th power, consider that the number of fundamental particles in the universe is approximately 10 to the 80th.

In 1943, the distinguished French mathematician Émile Borel stated that “events with a sufficiently small probability never occur” (Institute of Mathematical Statistics).

Dr. Borel chose a fairly safe number, 10 to the minus 50.

Ten to the 50th marbles1 cm in diameter would fill 923,400,000,000,000,000,000,000 spheres the size of earth.  This is 923,400 billion billion.

Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!” ― Jun-yuan Chen, paleontologist

Censoring and silencing dissent from Darwinism is unintelligent and unscientific.

“I believe that I was considered by all my masters and by my Father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in intellect.” – Charles Darwin

If Charles considered his father “the best judge of character whom I ever knew,” how heavily and prophetically those words must have fallen upon him:  “You will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family.”

Darwin’s disgrace was leading countless followers to atheism, for the Creator was no longer “needed”.

In his mediocrity, Darwin used almost infinite extrapolation on simple adaptation he observed in the Galapagos Islands.  By the same method Darwin could have extrapolated that since runners continually break old records, they will someday run a mile in two seconds, and high jump 2,000 feet.

As evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution made it intellectually satisfying for me to be an atheist.”

_________________________

This is the schematic for a NEC monitor.

This monitor performs a valuable function and is clearly designed, that is to say, it did not develop itself.

This is the schematic for a single cell.  Note the similarities of the two schematic designs.

However, unlike the NEC monitor schematic, the cell schematic:

1.  Cannot be constructed by humans in a laboratory, but only by another living cell,
2.  Can feed (provide power) to itself,
3. Can repair itself,
4. Can reproduce itself,
5. Can modify its own structure, as when muscles are developed through exercise.

To pretend that sophisticated electronics were designed by educated engineers, but far more sophisticated cells and animals made themselves, via statistically impossible, complex syntheses, is clearly absurd.

_______________________________________

The root word for science is “Scientia,” Latin for “knowledge.”  The new buzz word, “consensus,” is not science and scientific consensus has been wrong countless times over human history.  The excuse given for all these errors is *science has a self-correcting mechanism.*  So does every living organism.   All plants and animals seek food, water, habitable space, and heal themselves when injured.

________________

Truth will always be paucorem hominem*, (of few men) and must therefore quietly and modestly wait for the few whose unusual mode of thought may find it enjoyable. Life is short, but works far and lives long; let us speak the truth. – Arthur Schopenhauer

If evolution is, in the words of many biologists, “fact, fact, fact,” then :

1.  Why have over 1,240 scientists signed A Dissent From Darwinism?
2. Why do Darwinists attack the organization and/or person (Calling them a “Young earth creationist” or “fundy”) making an argument instead of the argument itself, an Ad Hominem Fallacy of logic?
3. Why are evolutionary biologists so militantly opposed to listening to science refuting evolution when science has always been about dissent?
4. Why do they insist on citing the Bible in any discussion of Darwin’s Speculation?
5. Why do Darwinists mock “the God of the gaps” while they propound “science of the gaps” without even realizing their own hypocrisy?
6. Why do they relentlessly make the Fallacy of the Argument from Authority, in conjunction with the Fallacy of the Argument Ad Populum, insisting that because so many biologists, in particular, “believe” this, it must surely be so?
7. Why do they claim, “Given enough time and anything is possible”?  (Statistics do not change over time, as they like to pretend, any more than a coin flip being 50/50 changes when the coin is flipped every second or once every thousand years.)
8.  Why then are African grey parrots one of the smartest animals on earth, while sperm whales, with the largest brains on the planet, cannot even communicate with us at the most elementary level?  (The metric cited is brain size, not relative brain size.  Please don’t try to argue that brain mass to body mass is determinative.  Evolutionary biologists have long argued that homo sapiens “evolved” from more primitive life forms primarily because our larger, smarter brains gave us a “selective advantage.” 
9.  Why are tautological excuses so often given as answers to legitimate questions? For example, I asked a biology professor how it just happened that all animals with sight have two (or more) eyes, but never one.  His reply:  “It’s better that way.”
10. How can there be countless “evolutionary dead ends” which are used to explain away the lack of selection among primitive animals, such as the coelecanth, and even bacteria?  Evolution is supposed to be a constant process!  Not so.
11. Why have decades of research on animals which reproduce rapidly, such as the fruit fly, and bacteria, but they failed to result in new, successful species?
12. Why is the argument made that you must provide an alternative theory to evolution?  If it is invalid, then it must be repudiated, irrespective of whether or not any alternative theory, timetable, and mechanisms are offered.
13.  Why do Darwinists think that silliness is supposed to be convincing when they bring up “flat earth,” which nobody believes?
14. Why do they compare Darwinism with gravity, when no physicist compares gravity with Darwinism?
15. Why does Darwin’s “tree of life” fail to show species at nodes, no matter how recent the depiction?
16. Why can’t Darwin’s proponents ever discuss the science, or lack of science, in their tautology without trying to change the subject by “thumping the Bible”?  The hopeless inadequacies of Darwinism have nothing to do with the Bible!  Darwinism must stand on its own or it fails.

_____________________________________________

Haeckel’s drawings ostensibly demonstrating “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”
They were challenged in 1868 by Ludwig Rutimeyer  in Archiv für Anthropogenie immediately after their publication.  Some biology texts published as late as 2001, for example a book by Bruce Alberts, former head of the National Academy of Sciences, showed this fraud.

Famed Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote: “It is now firmly established that ontogeny [development of the individual] does not repeat phylogeny [development of the race]”
In any case, Haeckel had a passion for promoting the recapitulation theory, which he termed “the fundamental biogenetic law.” And, as one writer has noted:
“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity’” (Bowden 1977, 128).
Haeckel was exposed by professor L. Rutimeyer of Basle University. He was charged with fraud by five professors, and ultimately convicted in a university court. During the trial, Haeckel admitted that he had altered his drawings, but sought to defend himself by saying:
“I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm. 1977. Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, p. 128)

___________________________________

Coelacanth, caught in 1974, when it was thought to have been extinct for 70 million years.

Fossils unchanged over eons.

Wollemi Pines were thought to have gone extinct In Australia before the dinosaurs, hundreds of millions of years ago.  Yet in 1994, a biologist in New South Wales discovered a small grove of them at a location kept secret for their protection.

_________________________________________

Here was Darwin’s depiction of the tree of life.  Nothing is named anywhere.

A modern tree, showing only species at the tips of very long branches.  This is the best biologists can do after 150 years?   Why haven’t they discovered and labelled all the nodes?

_______________________________