Thursday, March 26, 2015

Recalling The Days Of Analog Computers

1964 Ad Flashback: When Analog Computers Walked the Earth
When I went through engineering school we had both analog computers and the huge IBM mainframe. We programmed both, the mainframe with decks of cards and results back in 10 days, and analog computers which graphed out results on an xy recorder while you waited.

Analog computers were actually designed real-time by the user, with a different design every time a new set of equations was run. That was because they were a series of operational amplifiers which had feedback loops that determined their mathematical output function and these were hooked together in a manner for simulation of the solution of the equations for a specific input. For a differential equation (not really available on the mainframe), you could integrate and differentiate depending on where you inserted the capacitor. It was very cool and it was very techie for the times.

Excerpts From An Interesting Essay

Political Correctness Is Devouring Itself
I never thought that actually saying all of this would ever be necessary. Apparently government schools and universities are stocked with people who got no education themselves, but are now "educating" for a living... which translated means cranking out adults who are perpetual juveniles, emotionally confused and fragile as grandma's tea cups.
"Go into the modern university and you won’t hear much about Mill or Milton or the millions around the world who have had to learn the hard way why freedom of speech matters. Instead, you will be fed philosophers far less rigorous than Feinberg. The New Zealander Jeremy Waldron, an Oxford professor from the American university system, which churns out authoritarian philosophers the way Ford churns out cars, suggests speech that attacks the dignity of others should be banned. Stanley Fish of New York dispenses with any pretence that we should respect universal human rights, and descends into power-worship and thuggery. “The only way to fight hate speech is to recognise it as the speech of your enemy,” he says. “And what you do in response to the speech of your enemy is not prescribe a medication for it but attempt to stamp it out.” Take a breath and think about his assumptions. This is the tyrannical language of an illiberal intelligentsia so lost in complacency it thinks it no longer needs the rights it once championed.We don’t care if we are being consistent, it says. We have the power to censor now and we will use it.

Few contemporary theorists grasp that people oppose censorship not because they respect the words of the speaker but because they fear the power of the censor. It is astonishing that professed liberals, of all people, could have torn up the old limits, when they couldn’t answer the obvious next question: who decides what is offensive?


In Britain the state is showing that real power does not and has never been in the hands of over-confident intellectuals. It is telling academics to report on campus Islamists, even when they are not engaged in violence. “Thank you very much,” the politicians seem to be saying to the illiberal philosophers, the organisers of blacklists, and the intellectuals who dismissed free speech as an illusion. “If you say you can ban speakers even though they are not provoking violence, we can demand that you spy on Islamist students, even though they are not violent either.”

All of a sudden and with a blackly comic haste, British academics are scrambling to rediscover the virtue of freedom of speech, a liberty they spent a generation denigrating. All of a sudden. And much too late.

No, no, no, the liberals protest. We never wanted to spy and censor on behalf of the powerful, but on behalf of the powerless. But again how are they to judge the loss of dignity that can justify criminal penalties? Perhaps the vehemence of the offence taken is the decisive factor. Maybe if the offended can prove that they are shocked beyond measure, they would provide legitimate grounds to censor. If so, we must give in to Islamists, who feel the hurt of blasphemy so keenly they will murder anyone they deem to have blasphemed. Many have given in and bowed to a blasphemy code enforced at gunpoint. If they were being consistent, they would have to back down if Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Scientologists, Satanists and atheists followed suit and started murdering the authors of unpleasant depictions of their beliefs. If conservatives could prove that the discussion of left-wing ideas incited pain, or left-wingers could say the same about right-wing ideas, they would presumably have to take the logical step of deciding that political argument was offensive too.

Identity politics and the demands for freedom from offence it breeds create a Hobbesian world where everyone can demand the censorship of everyone else. There is no better proof of this than the fate of the politically correct themselves.

Strip away the appearance of a solid ideology, and you see the contradications. The tendency of the modern liberal-left to excuse radical Islam is supported by the politically correct belief that liberals should support a religion of the disadvantaged. In the name of liberalism, they fail to fight a creed that is sexist, racist, homophobic and, in its extreme forms, genocidal and totalitarian. Their political correctness has turned their principles inside out, and led them to abandon their beliefs in female and homosexual equality.

But the difficulties in pretending there are no conflicts between groups are as nothing compared to the pretence that there are no conflicts within them. Michael Ezra, a friend who is researching the growth of the illiberal intelligentsia, says that he is constantly reminded of Trotsky’s warning about the Bolshevik party’s claim that it represented the working class. A rapid descent follows, Trotsky said: “The organisation of the party substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organisation; and finally the ‘dictator’ substitutes himself for the Central Committee.” Or in the case of feminist identity politics the people with the loudest voices substitute themselves for an entire gender.


We have gone from the principle that only speech that incites crime can be banned to the principle that speech that incites gross offence can be banned to the principle that speech that provokes discomfort can be banned. This is not so much a slippery slope as a precipitous drop.

Many want to take the plunge. A few weeks ago, 130 intellectuals wrote to the Observer to make the classic case for freedom of speech. They said that feminists critical of the sex industry and of some demands made by trans activists were being banned because the prevailing consensus was that the mere “presence of anyone said to hold those views is a threat to a protected minority group’s safety. You do not have to agree with the views that are being silenced to find these tactics illiberal and undemocratic.”

Who could possibly object to that, I thought.

Just about everyone, it turned out. Hundreds of other intellectuals replied in the next issue of the Observer. They made the counterfeit claim that being “no-platformed” by student groups was not an attack on free speech. They went on to confuse support for free speech with support for the speaker—the tactic of every grand dictator and little Hitler in history—and implied that standing up for open debate meant the letter’s signatories were indeed “transphobes” and “whorephobes”. Extreme though their reaction was, it was nothing when set against the reaction of online activists.

The indomitable gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell is a hard man to frighten. He has fought homophobic vigilantes and Robert Mugabe’s security guards. But even Tatchell was unnerved by the 4,000 abusive Twitter messages he received for putting his name to the Observer letter. His abusers denounced him as a “homo”, “foreigner”, “misogynist”, “paedophile” and “nutter”. One correspondent informed him that “I would like to tweet about your murder you fucking parasite.” So much for the safety of those who seek to challenge “safe spaces”.


Electoral calculation ought to stop left-wingers allowing conservatives to own the inspiring idea of freedom of speech. If they could only see how they appear to others, they would understand that the people they are trying to convert tend to suspect those who would tell them what to say and how to say it. Many who should be open to radical arguments will turn away because they associate the Left with the silencing of contrary views and the imposition of orthodoxy. Above all, left-wingers need to grasp that speech codes and blacklists do not produce social change but a hypocritical observance of conventional pieties.
If they doubt it, they should look at how the willingness of governments and corporations to make the minor concession of following PC language rules in no way stops them from slashing public services or exploiting workers. They should see what is wrong with a country where you can get away with any amount of cruelty as long as you don’t use “inappropriate” language. If they examine history, they would realise the dangers they face. The first wave of political correctness came in the early 1990s, when the American Left was on its knees after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and triumph of capitalism. So risible was its condition, its chosen candidate for the US presidency was Bill Clinton, a shifty politician of no fixed conviction who had been pretty much been bought by Wall Street. With no possibility of changing the world, campus radicals retreated into themselves and decided to change the university instead.

Now they are in retreat again. Despite the Crash, the Occupy movement has fizzled out, and the American Left’s apparent candidate is Hillary Clinton, a shifty politician of no fixed conviction, who has been pretty much bought by Wall Street. And with today’s retreat come all the 1990s’ problems of speaking in private PC codes, which are as alien to ordinary voters as Nancy Mitford’s U and Non-U English. With the retreat comes the pathetic insistence on reforming language rather than reforming society, and the old seductive delusion that you can censor your way to a better tomorrow.

The rest of the population should worry about the future too. The politicians, bureaucrats, chief police officers and corporate leaders of tomorrow are at universities which teach that free debate and persuasion by argument are ideas so dangerous they must be banned as a threat to health and safety. Unless we challenge them in the most robust manner imaginable, whatever kind of country they grow up to preside over is unlikely to be a free one."

Go to the LINK for the full essay, or just to give the author a hit.

Obama's Cowardly War On Israel: More

US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel's Nuclear Program
In Shocking Breach, U.S. Declassifies Document Revealing Some of Israel's Nuclear Capabilities
Despicable. Purely despicable.

And this:
AP Exclusive: Iran may run centrifuges at fortified site
Beyond Despicable.

Atheism Is Good: Daylight Atheism

Adam Lee at Daylight Atheism claims that Atheism is necessary… for the Good of mankind.
”In fact, I’d go further and say that a politically active, engaged atheist movement is a force for good in the world. The more success it enjoys, the more potential it has to benefit everyone. As such, it deserves our support and advocacy, even when it may stumble or go astray.”
Atheism is not doing a very great job for the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans, the Venezuelans, etc. Atheism allows any cultural desecration and mass annihilation because it contains no proscriptive moral principles whatsoever. So the first statement here is obviously false, is oblivious to the lack of principles in Atheism, and to the specific documented history of Atheism as a governing morality.
”In what ways is atheism a force for good? There are so many answers to this question. I could write about people suffering nightmarish trauma from their fear of hell, or people with mental illness who are treated with prayer and exorcism instead of medicine. I could write about children in faith-healing sects who suffer and die from curable ailments, or the crushing burden of guilt and shame over sex, or cults that box all their members into a narrow, rigidly defined role in life. Defeating all these pernicious beliefs, and offering an alternative path to people harmed by them, is a positive good.”
"Nightmarish trauma from their fear of hell"? Histrionic much? These issues are dredged largely from the overheated Atheist imagination of their prevalence, and is belied by the lack of their actual prevalence and by the miniscule import which they present as social issues. Plus, most of these are being fought by responsible religious organizations devoted to them, not by Atheists.
”As well, I could say that atheists do good deeds in the world. I could write about atheists who support each other in community, or who’ve given money and time to help the needy. I could even say that atheism contributes to peace around the world. “
Atheists do support each other, until one of them crosses the line and thus becomes a target as a heretical abomination (Antony Flew comes to mind). As for giving anything, Atheists are known to donating the equivalent of two Latte’s per month to charities, and AtheoLeftists are known for not paying their taxes, too. Without principles for morality, behavior becomes just whatever you can get away with.

As for contributing to peace, yes, Atheists have declared war on entire classes of people, wiped them from the face of the earth, and declared peace after their pogroms have suppressed all dissent, with dissenters either dead or in gulags far from reporters and visibility. The Kulaks and other peoples are now "at peace". People making the “Atheist peace” claim have been termed “useful idiots” by real Atheists.
”I could write about all these things, but I won’t. The better answer is more fundamental: because atheism is the acknowledgement of reality, and reality matters.”
Already completely out of touch with documented, historical reality, yet he is claiming “reality” as an exclusive feature of Atheism. No; because for Atheism, reality doesn’t actually matter; the false narrative that it matters is what matters. Because what is emerging in this narrative is the principle of Philosophical Materialism, which cannot be proven under its own principles to be what it claims: the true, limiting principle of reality. The entire rest of reality doesn't matter to Atheists.
”There are many liberal religions that don’t perpetuate the evils I listed. There are believers who’ve built hospitals, who’ve marched for justice, who’ve helped to feed and clothe the poor. I don’t scorn them for their activism. But I do insist that even their ideas, however laudable they may be, are ultimately based on things that are unreal: the promise of another life beyond this one, the idea that prayer and scripture-reading can be used to discover truth, the belief that morality consists of obedience to the decrees of an unseen being.”
And here it is: pure denialism without hope of proof, assumed to be axiomatic and the actual truth without any hope of evidence, logic or empirical testing for confirmation. It is, in fact, a metaphysical position which is not reducible to physical evidence. Because it is presented as Truth, without proof, it is a religiously held blind belief, one that has no basis in reality OR the charge of "unreality".
”Even if taught with the best intentions, these beliefs subtly denigrate reality. They encourage us to focus not on the here-and-now, on the tangible and the real, but on some other realm that’s held up above this life.”
Actually that is exactly what Atheism does. Atheism makes the claim of knowledge, as this author does, that there positively is no existence which is not physical. In its naïve form, as this Atheist produces, reality is solely material, cause and effect (contra Hume), and deterministic. That "reality" is held up above and supreme to the observation that reality contains non-deterministic, untestable, unmeasurable features such as non-deducible existence of consciousness, intellect, qualia, etc., all necessarily derived from minerals deterministically according to Materialist Atheism. Reality which is artificially limited to physical existence cannot explain these, and that is not due to immature science. It is because these things are not causally produced (or they would be merely automatic responses, easily Reproduced), and it is thus because science cannot produce hypothetico-reductive-falsifiable laws which can be validated objectively regarding these effects.
” Even when they call for social action, they promote the belief that evil and suffering are in some sense necessary, part of a greater plan that’s beyond our grasp.”
There is much that is beyond the grasp of the artificially limited comprehension of Atheist ideologists. That doesn’t mean that these esoteria are false. It merely means that they are ideologically constrained from objectively considering them.
” And just when it’s become most crucial that we collectively make the right decisions if humanity is to survive and flourish, they assert that beliefs based on ancient folk tales, wishful thinking, and nebulous personal conviction are just as good as, if not better than, beliefs founded on science, evidence, and reasoned reflection.”
Here it is: the Ad Hominem rejection of non-Atheism using prejudicial pejoratives, followed by the admiring, even worshipful abeyance to Scientism and personal elitist opinion. Both Scientism and subjective opinionation are anti-rational. Especially when they are directed at moral principles under the influence of the moral VOID of Atheism. And it is most egregiously dangerous when it is directed at "humanity", for the GOOD of all the herd.
”The great moral conflicts of the next hundred years must be settled on the basis of what’s true, not just on who believes more fervently.
Whups. This statement directly contradicts the contiguously previous statement. Scientism/Opinion cannot produce anything which is True, especially and particularly regarding morals. So it's EITHER Truth OR Scientism/Opinion. One could ask the Kulaks how it worked out for them, except they were eugenically mass murdered by the Scientific Atheists under Lenin. (For the Good of Humanity, no less). And it actually is not “who believes what more fervently”. Under Atheism it is purely the Will To Power; belief is not an issue.
”Even when we aim at the right ends, letting faith guide our steps will always lead to diverted and wasted effort, will always threaten to trip us up and lead us down blind alleys, and will always breathe life into the very fundamentalisms that pose the threat in the first place.”
Atheists love the word, “fundamentalism”, because they infer from it that there are evil principles involved which keep them from what they really want, and what they want is for everyone else to be exactly like them: government to be Atheist; society to have no rules; tolerance of all behaviors except dissent of course, which is the only evil. So having “fundamental” principles for one’s behavior goes directly counter to the moral anarchy of the Atheist VOID and its children: totalitarian control of the masses, for their equality and their own GOOD. Under Atheist total control it has been demonstrated sufficiently that only the elites actually get the perquisites and the freedom to use them; the Other gets squashed under the “equality” dictated top-down. Those are the consequences of Atheist fundamentalism.
”Most of all, faith keeps us from what’s real.
In a sense, this statement is correct, but not in the manner intended. Faith in Scientism, Materialism, the personal supremacy of the Atheist-elitist mind, these faiths do keep the Atheist from comprehending the fullness of reality. This happens by restricting the concept of reality to the sensorily perceived mechanical superset of universal existence (our visible, touchable physical world), and the restricted ability to hypothesize and deduce outside that ideological, arbitrary limitation. The perceivable universe is now known to be just a subset of what is actual (probably consisting of all quantum waves with no mechanical component at all at the common sublevel). And even at the perceptible level, the ability to apply cause/effect is limited to certain categories of existence.

Atheists probably acknowledge the sub-existence: invisible atoms, subatomic "particles", quantum energies, and so on. But Atheists refuse to acknowledge any higher existence than themselves. And this despite the multi-dimension theories of strings, and the multilevel verification theory of Godel, not to mention the Russell paradox which mathematically demonstrates the inability to have a superset which is the defining truth for all subsets. Atheists are not the top superset, regardless of their beliefs.

The Atheist assertion of what’s “real” and what’s "important" is, to say the least, myopic and self-centered. At worst, it is a deception being practiced upon credulous believers, not unlike what a cult would proclaim as truth to their credulous believers.
The cosmos is beautiful enough as it is, deep enough as it is, glorious enough as it is; we need no small human fantasies to embellish it, nor a dusting of mythology to confer it all with meaning.
And here we have the unsubtle revelation that there is no actual meaning in the Atheist worldview. That then, is the reality which he has been going on about. There is no meaning, so he wants everyone to accept whatever manufactured meaning he applies to their existence. Again, a claim reminiscent of historical Atheist governing principles.
”The real story of how everything came to be and where we fit into the grand picture is more spectacular and awe-inspiring than any religion, and it has the virtue of being true.”
If he is referring to the evolutionary Modern Synthesis of Darwinian principles, then that is known to be not even accepted by the evolutionary elites in the Atheist/Materialist community. That’s fail #1. Not so spectacular, beautiful, or awe inspiring. The second is his declarations of superiority superlatives in order to appear to degrade all non-Atheist beliefs. And again, he mistakes his proclamation to be Truth – or at least he wants the reader to make that mistake.
Embracing reality in all its fullness, unclouded by false hope or illusion, is the most profound of all the gifts that atheism has to offer the world.”
He is actually blinded by the false hope and illusion of his belief in religious Scientism and Philosophical Materialism. And he uses this delusion as support for his claim that Atheism is Good. In all, he has presented no actual material evidence and no deductive logic for his case, and that results in his case being presented as a religious sermon or worse, a set of blind beliefs without basis in actual material fact declared true, despite the failure of the materialism espoused.

The irony of Atheism is that it produces exactly the intellectual tyranny which it claims to be fighting, and there is more than ample historical data to support that knowledge. Yet Atheists persist in producing false testimonies like this, as if there exists no history of Atheist control of societies and science for them even to consider. Whether that is due to ignorance or evil is up to the observer to decide.

In the final analysis: there is NO document containing The Official Atheist Moral Principles; there are no such things Moral Principles which are common to all Atheists, or even most Atheists. And thus there is no Atheist definition for Good or Evil. Therefore, no Atheist can legitimately claim to be Good Without God: that is irrational.

This Atheist article is based on the following premises, which are presented as axiomatic:
1. Materialism is true;

2. Atheism is Good;

3. External Fundamental Principles for behavior are evil;

4. Non-Materialists are delusional.
Each premise is demonstrably false under logical analysis:
1. Materialism is interally non-coherent, being unable to prove its own premises under its own arbitrary limitations.

2. Atheism has no common definition for GOOD; therefore the term is either non-existent for Atheists or is purely relative and unusable.

3. Atheism has no common definition for EVIL; therefore the fundamentals of belief systems cannot be evil. Further, unrestricted behavior under Atheism more closely resembles traditional conceptual EVIL when its historical consequences are considered.

4. Rejection of a non-coherent, unprovable, arbitrary ideological claim is not irrational, it is logical.

Obama Quietly Changed Immigration Law Again This Week

In a move that coincided with the serial weekly meetings with Google, Obama unilaterally is changing L1B immigration rules to favor the immigration of foreign workers into US Corporations.
Did you know Obama just took new executive action on immigration?
Congress and the Supreme Court might as well be disbanded and sent home; they are completely without influence or power and are a waste of taxpayer money until after the next president is installed... if Obama lets that happen. After all, the only military leaders left are those who are loyal to Obama, not the US Constitution.

Amnesty International Finally Takes On The Leftist Iconic "Victims": Palestinians Killed Palestinians

Palestinian rockets killed Gaza civilians during war: Amnesty
They also used Gaza civilians as shields, as well as firing randomly into civilian zones. Their morality is just this: "Any atrocity is fine so long as we shout 'Allahu Ackbar - we are the victims, not those who we slaughter'".

This will not stop the western Leftists from demonizing Israel and Jews. Virulent antisemitism is a very popular hate focus at this point in history. Haters just gotta hate, and they need a focal point for pinpointing group hysteria.

There seems to be no safe place on the entire planet, if you are Jew these days (even Leftist Jews hate Jews).

How Does Congress Know What Obama Is Doing?

The Israeli spies tell them...

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The Leftist War On Israel and Jews Is In The Open

US Accuses Israel of Spying
Israel is left out in the cold by US negotiations that will affect the survival of Israel at the hand of Iran. The US government is the bad actor here.
Dem Rep Rips Breitbart Editor as ‘Orthodox’ Jew at Anti-Israel Convention
The J Street Conference is anything BUT what it advertises itself; it is Leftist anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian-PA/Hamas. It's odd that so many Jews hate Israel, and want what the Palestinians want: The Palestinians want ALL of Israel, and they are not bashful about saying so. They have refused statehood several times in the past, because they want Israel, free of Jews, for themselves. "J Street" consists of the Palestinian's useful idiots.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Headline of the Day

From Instapundit:
STARBUCKS: Where Only The Coffee Is Black! It’s not shocking at all that this lame “conversation about race” stuff is coming from an organization that’s as white as a Netroots Nation conference, an Obama campaign HQ, a New Republic alumni get-together or a Vox editorial board meeting.

The primary purpose of race-talk in America today is to allow elite whites to silence and shame non-elite whites. Thus, it’s not surprising that the people pushing it are . . . a bunch of elite whites.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

The Theory Of Evolution: Modern Synthesis

Chapter 2.  The Modern Synthesis Goes To Work 

 [Note 1: the first chapter will be taken from the "Very Short Course On Evolution" already published, upper right column]

[Note 2: please feel free to offer criticisms, suggestions and error reports, thanks!]

To recap: Darwin’s theory, known as Darwinism, was developed by Charles Darwin’s observations of both fossil finds and exotic animals he observed during his time on the HMS Beagle. His theory, published in 1859 [1], was this: there is natural variation amongst animals and plants and that variation might be naturally selectable over very long time frames to produce plants and animals that are different from the originals.  Further, all plants and animals, in fact, all living things might have come from just one single ancestor. These theoretical premises became known as variation, natural selection, gradualism and common descent. Darwin also accepted Lamarckism, which posited that acquired characteristics or features might also be heritable.

“Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.”
Michael Shermer [2]

The Process: A Short History of the Development of the Modern Synthesis

“The late Nobel laureate Sir Peter Medawar once remarked that “the reasons that have led professionals without exception to accept the hypothesis of evolution are in the main too subtle to be grasped by laymen.”
Sean B Carroll [3]

One might think – and hope – that a process which is declared to be science would have been developed using the standard tools of empiricism, namely induction of possible physical causation, induction of a theory of causation, deduction of physical effect from a physical cause, experimental design and implementation, analysis of experimental data for either falsification or support for the hypothesis, peer review, release of all data to the public for independent replication in order for the proposed knowledge to become objectively, if contingently, held. Otherwise, how could a concept be called objective knowledge produced by science, no matter how dearly it is held?

If science cannot or will not produce objective knowledge, then it must be subjectively held opinion and no matter how many hold this opinion, nor who they are, nor what their credentials, it still is just opinion and not objective knowledge.

“Progress depends on a blend of observation or experiment, which may suggest general principles, and of deductions from these principles that can ve tested aginast new observations or experiments. The search for knowledge of practical value can serve as a corrective to uncontrolled speculation…”
Steven Weinberg [4]

Fortunately there is a history which reveals how the Modern Synthesis came to be installed as “hardening of the synthesis” as Stephen Jay Gould put it [5], petrified it into scientific dogma, and which for many evolutionists became totally unchallengeable.

The Fight Over Neo-Darwinism

Neo-Darwinism was not easily won. The battle over Lamarckism was brutal. The turn of the century episode between Weismann and Spencer, who nearly came to blows over the issue of Lamarckism, is described by Stephen Jay Gould [6]:

“Passions ran high; I own Weismann’s annotated copies of Spencer’s articles, and his anger drips off the pages. The two warriors thrusted and parried on both high and low roads, mixing some good arguments about the structure of evolutionary explanation with ad hominem  charges of incompetence. Weismann disparaged Spencer for being merely a philosopher, and not a true scientist: ‘ I can only explain Mr. Spencer’s ignoring such cogent instances by supposing that, as a philosopher,  he is unacquainted with the facts by personal observation and that therefore they appear less weighty to him than to a naturalist; for I would not for a moment suppose that purposely evades the difficulties which face his opinion, as is the manner of popular orators and advocates – and alas! even of some scientists.’

Spencer, in his touche’, replied, not entirely without justice as we shall see, that Weismann had hidden poor arguments under the cloak of authority as a practicing scientist: ‘Now it is doubtless true that as a naturalist he may claim for his ‘opinion’ a relatively great weight. Still, in pursuance of the method of science, it seems to me that something more than an opinion is required for a far-reaching theory.” [Emphasis Added]

Weismann became the man known for “disproving Lamarckism”, according to Gould.  Further, says Gould,
“Weismann’s strong anti-Lamarckian argument does not rest upon an experiment, or an empirical observation at all. The rejection of soft inheritance arise as a logical deduction from Weismann’s most distinctive contribution – his theory of inheritance and the continuity of germ plasm…

Weismann wrote in his ALLMACHT paper (1893, p 608): ‘Nature has carefully enclosed the germ-plasm of a germ-cells in a capsule, and it is only yielded up for the formation of daughter-cells, under most complicated precautionary conditions’

Once Lamarckian inheritance becomes impossible, Weismann’s argument for the Allmacht of selection proceeds in four logical steps. This fourfold development will strike most modern scientists as curious and unsatisfactory, for the sequence not only requires no empirical contribution, but actively denies the possibility of effective input from this conventional source of scientific affirmation. The argument breaks no rules of logic, but several of its premises are (to say the least) not self-evidently true.” [Emphasis Added]

In other words, “I am a scientist; no actual disciplined science is needed; trust me.”  Darwin’s story-telling-as-science took full hold and became the defining process of science for evolutionary theory.

By the turn of the century, Neo-Darwinism was accepted, which allowed for all of Darwin’s original premises, but disallowed Lamarckism.

Trouble For The Principle of “Variation”: The Hardening Around Mutation

In the 1930’s and ‘40’s there was a considerable turmoil amongst evolutionary theorists. This resulted in the development of another required premise for evolution: mutation. Mutation was required in order for the radical changes to occur which were observed in the fossil record; mere variation was not enough.  And Mendel’s genetics, which threatened Darwinism, were force fit into the new evolutionary theoretical “synthesis”.  Mutation, Selection, Deep Time, Common Descent, with some Mendelian Genetics of a sort. This was known as the Modern Synthesis, and became the dogma for evolution.

When it comes to the development of the Modern Synthesis, disputes similar to the Lamarckian crisis arose. However, Gould documents a “hardening” of the concepts, and the hardening has been verified by other historians. Gould describes the realization of a trait which started with Simpson, who had modified his original position, but hid that fact: “Simpson had minimized the appearance of change by retaining the same terms while profoundly altering their meanings”.  He had become adaptationist without admitting his changeover.

Gould found that Dobzhansky, Mayr, and “other key figures”,
 “…all had moved from pluralism to strict adaptationism – and along a remarkably similar path [to that of Simpson]. I began to view this transition as the major ontogenetic event of the Synthesis during its second phase. I christened this change as the hardening of the Synthesis…”. [7]

But the Modern Synthesis had hardened without critical examination in some areas. For example,
Dobzhansky’s willingness to accept an incomprehensible literature, and the later acquiescence of so many leaders from other subdisciplines (largely via Dobzshansky’s “translation”), testify to a powerful shared culture among evolutionists – a set of assumptions accepted without fundamental questioning or perceived need to grasp the underlying mechanics. Such a sense of community can lead to exhilarating, active science (but largely in the accumulative mode, as examples cascade to illustrate accepted principles).  As a downside, however, remaining difficulties, puzzles, anomalies, unresolved corners, and bits of illogic may retreat to the sidelines – rarely disputed and largely forgotten (or by the next generation, never learned).  This situation may sow seeds of an orthodoxy  that can then become sufficiently set and unchallenged to verge on dogma – as happened in many circles, at least among large numbers of epigones, at the acme of the Synthesis in the late 1950’s and 1960’s.”[8]
[Emphasis Added]

So were these celebrity scientists doing actual science?  Let’s take a quick look at the definition of science, from the National Academy of Sciences:

Definition of Science
The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.” [9]

Clearly the Modern Synthesis came into being without any physical evidence other than the fossil record of animals existing in prehistory and being found in layers.  Evolution was not found; it was created without benefit of direct evidence for it, without a thought of testability in any explanations, and without any capability of predicting any outcome, whatsoever, except for finding certain remains in certain geological layers.  It was a series of meta-hypotheses which had hardened purely by mutual acceptance within a select and credentialed circle.

The Modern Synthesis Becomes Dogma

By the 1950s the Modern Synthesis had solidified into the standard apologetic for evolution, and the evolutionary community was ready for the advent of DNA as explanatory for genetics and genomes in general.  DNA provided a theoretical matrix to support the new but vague concept of mutation as the necessary change in a genome which could be selected naturally. Thus a new genome could be produced with new features, perhaps new organs, and speciation which deviated from that genome’s prior species, just by mutating the structure of DNA.

There was little left to question about evolution, it seemed.  So the focus changed from finding new causes to more in-depth analysis of those causes of mutation, the frequency and extent of mutation, the possibility of beneficial mutation, and natural selection of those beneficial mutations. These issues would necessarily have to be justified, if the combination of mutation/selection were to be declared causal for evolution as found in the fossil record.

There were challenges to the dogma.

“Perhaps our Darwinian prejudice for regarding selection as by far the most effective, or virtually the only important, process of evolutionary change arises more from the parochialism of our organismal focus (given our own personal residence in this category) than from any universal characterization of all levels in evolution.”
Stephen Jay Gould [10]
And there were some obviously desperate explanatory supporting hypotheses, which were necessary due to the failure of the fossil record to support the Modern Synthesis. Gould proposed the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium [11], which stated that evolution might remain stable, without change (stasis) for long periods but might be punctuated with periods of brief but rapid genomic change (rapid evolution).  This was necessary in order to counter the theory that deep time (gradualism) was an absolute requirement for evolutionary change but which was not a consistent feature of the fossil record.

But this new theory held that no evidence actually was evidence for quick evolution (e.g. in the Cambrian explosion).  This was hardly a causal theory, and not much different from what Gould himself deprecatingly called “Just So Story Telling” as the scientific methodology of evolutionary “science”.  In fact, storytelling was all that Darwin had to offer for his theory.  That he thought it plausible enough to be actual science is one thing. That many others declared its plausibility to be actual science and even truth is another.

But the theorists took to heart the issues which needed more careful explanation, even though the mechanics of evolution itself were still undefined except at the meta-theory level.


“It is now clear that gene mutations and structural and numerical chromosome changes are the principle sources of variation”
Gould, [12]

Mutational causes were known to produce cancers and defects in progeny, defects which were generally selected out of the genome.  The deleterious mutation rate was placed at a level of 0.12 to 0.30 mutations per person per generation [13].  More recently the rate is placed at 100 to 175 nucleotides per person per generation [14].  And the human mitochondrial mutation rate is placed at nearly “one mitochondrial mutation per person per generation within the reproductive cell line” [15].

But there are other types of mutations as well, the most serious of which is “macro-mutation”, which affects entire DNA sequences, much as changing a single word throughout an instruction manual changes the meaning within the manual.  Such changes are not logically for the better, producing by accident a better product than originally produced by following the original manual without random changes.

As an example of deleterious mutation occurrence, there is this: for a lower threshold, given 6 billion humans and 100 (very conservatively) new mutations per human, there have been 600 billion new mutations in one generation.  That comes to 200 mutations for every nucleotide in the human genome, in just one generation. If this sounds serious, it is.  Because of the following, all of those mutations are to be considered deleterious:

From Sanford:
“In June of 2007 a large international consortium of genome scientists (under the name ENCODE) published their finds in a set of 29 scientific papers. These findings have stunned the genetics community (Kaperanov et al., 2007).  They show that the human genome is vastly more complex than they had expected, and that essentially all of the genome is transcribed – most of it in both directions. They conclude that most nucleotides are not only functional but are poly-functional, having multiple roles. This means that the genome’s functionality exceeds 199% (most of both strands of DNA are functional). In this light, no mutations should be considered “perfectly neutral”, and essentially all mutations must be considered deleterious. This means that the real deleterious mutation rate in man is nothing less that staggering – well over 100 mutations per person per generation! This is more than an order magnitude greater than was considered possible just five years ago.” [16]

The impact is this:
(a) there are no neutral mutations which can be carried forward to combine with other neutral mutations at some later time in order to ultimately produce beneficial outcomes;
(b)  genomic entropy is, in fact, not just dominant, it is the only mutation characteristic which applies,
(c) There exists an “error catastrophe” in the form of human-wide degradation leading to extinction.  Bernardes [17] called it “mutational meltdown”.

Another factor to consider is that the DNA code is somewhat redundant: according to Yockey, eukaryotic genomes (multicellular) have 8 to 20% duplicates [18]. These serve as error corrections, along with other internal error correction devices [19], thus limiting not only deleterious mutations but also beneficial mutations as well.


Given that virtually all mutations are deleterious, Kumura [20] created a visual conception of the truncated distribution, and added his “no selection zone”, which encompassed most of the mutations in the distribution.

Fig. 1. The Kimura Distribution, showing the “No Select Zone” for mutations.

And the Kimura Distribution of selectable mutations shows that while only a few negative mutations are selectable, no positive mutations (zero) are selectable. [21]

Fig 2. Kimura Distribution with addition of positive mutations.

If one assumes that some number of positive mutations do occur, then their placement in the distribution is shown in Fig. 2.  They fall well within the No Selection Zone.  This along with the findings of the ENCODE genome scientists, demonstrates the impossibility of selection of positive traits due to mutation. [22] (Both graphs are from Sanford’s “Genetic Entropy”, p31, 32.)

From an external view, Pigliucci and Muller make this statement [23]:

“Hence the organisms themselves represent the determinants of selectable variation and innovation. At the theoretical level, this shifts a significant portion of the explanatory weight from the external conditions of selection to the internal generative properties of evolving phenotypes”.

In other words, mutations (external causation) are no longer thought to be significantly causal; so they are now replaced by internal causes occurring naturally (perhaps epi-genetically).  The removal of mutations as causal means that selection is not a necessary feature of evolutionary theory.

Selection has never been much help: mutations at the nucleotide level are not selectable.  There are at least six levels of removal of nucleotides from the whole organism. It is at the whole organism level that natural selection would work. Yet, even given the error correction capabilities and protein competition for activation, some errors still make it to the whole organism level.  Virtually all of those will not be benign or beneficial.  And any selection that is done will be done to purge those whole organisms which exhibit negative mutations that affect the whole organism.

Genetic Causality:
Pigliucci and Muller again [24]:

“But gene centrism necessarily disappears in an extended account that provides for multi-causal evolutionary factors acting on organismal systems’ properties, including the non-programmed components of environment, development, and inheritance.”

The focus thus becomes, “genes as followers”, while “evolution progresses through the capture of emergent interactions into genetic-epigenetic circuits which are passed to and elaborated on in subsequent generations.”

Translation: there are new relationships between genes which are switched on or off internally, and for whatever reason.  The new relationships become something new, which is passed along.  It is thus kept as a new genetic feature, and doesn’t even require selection in order to be perpetuated.  Evidence for this will be discussed in coming chapters.

As for the Darwinian theory of gradualism (aka, “deep time”, originally thought to be required for serious changes to be gradually selected into new, evolved creatures), the deep time theory was killed by the fossil record itself.  The development of all the major phyla in the short time (5 to 15 mya) of the Cambrian Explosion negated the need for deep time.

And as an aside, the Cambrian Explosion has wounded the concept of common descent (common ancestry) as well, because even after 250 years of fossil excavation there has been no common ancestor found for all the phyla which are found in the Cambrian Explosion.

In a final blow to natural selection, mutation, gradualism and gene-centrism, Pigliucci and Muller say this:

“The overcoming of gradualism, externalism, and gene centrism are general hallmarks of the Extended Synthesis, whether in the forms presented here, or in various other accounts to a similar effect published since the late 1990s.” [25]

With this, it appears that (for some evolutionary theorists at least) Darwinism is dead.

Failing both all the original premises, and all the criteria for being called a “science” has not deterred either evolutionary “scientists” or evolutionary fans from claiming its high status, even as the unifying theory of biology, and further to declare skeptics to be anti-science.

Unification Theory

The unification of all empirical theories into one coherent science has been addressed by Carnap; Neurath, and explained by Brand Blanchard

“And if two statements are so related that they are always true together, and always false together, they are ‘equipollent’; each is the logical equivalent of the other and may at will be translated into it. If such equipollence is recognized, the road to the unity of science is clear.  Every factual statement of in every science will have an identical test of meaning and truth. All laws will be interconnected as parts of a single system. As Carnap put it, science will become intersensible, intersubjective, and universal. It will be intersensible because we need no longer regard tasted sound and colour as incommensurable data; they can now all be read as physical changes differing only in physical ways. Again science will be subjective because, when we say for example, ‘the room is hot’, we shall not mean that we have a private feeling inaccessible to everyone else, but that the room has  physically a certain temperature, which can be tested by a thermometer open to the observation of all.  And the language of science will be universal because ‘every sentence of any branch of scientific language is equipollent to some sentence of the physical language without changing its content. Thus the new criterion of meaning, interpreted as requiring ‘physicalism’, becomes the most powerful of engines for the unification of science.” [26]

What would it take for the evolutionary hypothesis to become a unifying theory, even if merely unifying all of biology, and even if merely under the authority of empirical science?  Evolutionists frequently cite Maxwell’s unifying theory of electricity and magnetism. How does Modern Synthesis evolution compare?

1. Comprehensive application to all subsets:
Modern biological science does not depend upon evolutionary principles.  Evolution thus serves no need in biological study or progress.

2. Testability:
First, historical events are not empirically, experimentally testable.  Second, laboratory induced genomic changes would be intelligently designed, forcing changes, not natural changes.

3. Falsifiability:
Some have claimed that finding a pre-Cambrian rabbit would falsify evolution. But evolution is so malleable, having no elastic limits to its meta-hypotheses, that new hypotheses would jump up to cover that event – or any other fossil induced “refutation” of the dogma.  That has already happened, an example being the constant re-definition of “fossilization”, which now covers soft material which is not mineralized. [27]  Rather than adapt hypothesis to observation, observations are redefined to be congruent with hypothesis.

4. Accurate predictability:
Evolutionary hypothesis predicts no biological outcomes.[28] It can predict where fossils might be found, which is not a validation of evolution. But it also predicts fossils which have not been found (common ancestor for Cambrian Explosion), and it predicts fossils which cannot be found (first life).

5. Capable of replication:
By virtue of the “deep time” issue in the Modern Synthesis, none of the fossil record could be replicated as the events supposedly actually occurred (which is not knowable).  Creation of life or creatures in the lab would be an “intelligently designed” event, and therefore not a model of actual historical events.

Note that Maxwell’s unification does pass these requirements of a unification theory. Evolution, under the Modern Synthesis, does not.  In fact, it cannot even legitimately pretend to do so, because it has no causal theories, being mostly hyperbolic meta-hypothetical speculations.

And so we return to the issue of “what is science, actually, and what is not?” In Chapter One, science was defined as the generation of objective knowledge about the physical universe under the principles of empiricism.

Let’s look at the National Academy of Sciences answer to the question, “Is Evolution a Theory or Fact?”
“It is both…

Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun… or that living things are made of cells… (etc.)… Like these other foundational theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.” [29]

How many failures can we find in that assertion?
(1) Orbiting planets and cell theory have nothing to do with the validity of Evolutionary Theory. The entire first paragraph is laden with Appeal to Authority logic failure.

(2) Evolution is given stolen authority and credence by virtue of its false inclusion with “other foundational theories”.

(3) There are no observations of macro-evolution. None.

(4) There are no confirming experiments of macro-evolution. None.

(5) If there is “new evidence” it would actually be the first actual empirical evidence in support of Evolution, which currently has none.

(6) The need for “testability” as indicated on the prior, facing page, has been falsely claimed to exist.

(7) The Modern Synthesis is currently being overturned in all its aspects, precisely because there is no evidence to support it, and all of its premises have been found to be untenable (false).

So what about the claims of all that evidence which exists supporting evolution?  Well, disregarding fossil finds and speculations about them, and also disregarding the obligatory referencing of not-negating-evolution-more-study-money-needed in every biology paper printed, actual empirical evidentiary claims are sparse.  There are several famous examples.

Modern Synthesis Evidentiary Examples

1. The Grants and the Famous Darwin Finches

One of the most interesting Darwinian Evolutionary research projects has been that of the Grants. Drs. B. Rosemary Grant and Peter R. Grant are the spousal team who spent over a decade starting in 1973 studying Darwin’s Finches on the Galapagos Islands. These studies have been raised to mythical levels in the writings of evolution for public consumption.  Here is an example from Jonathan Weiner:

“The Grants are leaders of this field, and they are among its ideal representatives. Year after year they go back to the celebrated place in the study of evolution, the place that helped lead the young Darwin to his theory: the Galapagos, the Enchanted Islands.  There they observe Darwin’s finches, the birds that Darwin was the first naturalist to collect; the birds whose beaks inspired his first veiled hints about his evolutionary theory; the birds whose portraits in textbooks have now introduced so many generations to Darwinism that they have become international symbols of the process, totems of evolution, like the overshot brows and cumulous beard of Darwin himself. Now the Grants’ work on Darwin’s finches is entering the textbooks, too. This is one of the most intensive and valuable animal studies ever conducted in the wild; zoologists and evolutionists already regard it as a classic. It is the best and most detailed demonstration to date of the power of Darwin’s process.” [30]

But what, exactly, did the Grants actually find in all their years of observation of Darwin’s famous finches? What, exactly, justifies the hyperbolic elevation of the Grants to superstars of evolution? Here are the final results of the Grants 13 year study, in their own words:

“However, the change in mean beak length that occurred as a result of selection in the early phase of the drought was counteracted later in the drought in the opposite direction on bill depth, which is positively correlated with bill length. The overall result was no net change between the end of breeding in 1983 and the resumption of breeding in 1986.

The main generating processes are mutation, which we cannot study, and introgression of genes.
Including probable hybrids in the sample of breeding birds had the effect of increasing the coefficient of variation by 20 percent, and increasing the variance by 35 percent. Hybrids reproduced successfully, but did not live long and contributed less than nonhybrids to total breeding.

Thus variation is maintained by the opposing processes of introgression and selection. They were not in a state of balanceduring the decade. By the end of the study a significant reduction in the phenotypic variance of beak depth  and beak width had taken place among females, andnonsignificant differences in the same direction were apparent among the males. Given the high heritability of , it I possible that a reduction in genetic variation had occurred as well, as a result of selection.” [31]

So they found no permanent change and virtually no effect from hybridization due to early death of hybrids.  They speculate that the oscillation around stasis was produced by selection.  Further, when they thought they spotted “Population subdivision” due to a difference in finch songs, they were later forced to conclude:

“These initial signs of population subdivision subsequently disappeared.”

And this:

“Females, however, do not pair preferentially with males singing a particular song type; paternal song type does not influence their choice of mate, and so there is no reproductive subdivision of the population along the lines of song through assortative mating. Instead, females choose mates on the basis of plumage and courtship behavior.”

The Grants wrote an entire book, “The Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population” [31], to say that they found nothing which even suggested speciation changes in the population of Darwin’s Finches they monitored, nor did introgression and hybridization take hold. What they did find was beak length changing in response to food availability, a micro-evolution variation which oscillated within boundaries.

2. The Lake Malawi Cichlids

There are said to be some 500 species of cichlids (fish) in Lake Malawi, Africa. Of these, some 300 are said to be “mbuna”, or rock dwellers. The study [32] produced a dendogram (tree graph) showing their take on the relationships between different, isolated groups of cichlids, based on coloration. Included in the populations is the originating population, which still lives in the lake.

However, they also observed interbreeding, and they found that the variability of the genomes within each pocket population was far broader than the differential between genomes. Further, the DNA indicated a high degree (over 50%) of polymorphism, meaning that within a population many forms of DNA variability exist at a single DNA location.

Is there any reason from this to think that new characteristics have “evolved”? Given that the main morphological change is the mouth configuration, and that this characteristic variability is common within color-designated speciation, and given the ability to crossbreed, there is no morphological reason.

Given that the DNA variability under discussion is subtractive, not additive, there is no reason to think that the variations are not just subsets or subspecies of the main, overall species, which still exists.

Since the time frame assignments are based on differences in the number of common DNA markers seen, and there is no actual clocking mechanism involved other than this inference, there is no reason to think that this is meaningful, especially since the markers are not defined as to purpose, and might be meaningless to the presumed speciation.

To summarize: given the stated ability to cross-breed, plus the existence of members of the original population, and the lack of any reason to think that there was speciation based on new features, the conclusion follows that this is consistent with variation within a genome: subspeciation; not with evolution beyond the original genome.

Within this study there is no reason given to believe that the differences in coloration are an added feature, or that the differences are anything other than subtractive. In fact, their conclusion is merely that there are few “bottlenecks” to the creation of these populations. That would be expected in subpopulations of a single species, and is not in any sense macroevolution.

3. Evolution Of A Key Innovation In E-Coli

This experiment [33], which was begun in 1988 and is still progressing, was designed to watch for long term evolutionary activity in colonies of e-coli that were begun from identical clones:

“The founding strain is strictly asexual, and thus populations have evolved by natural selection and genetic drift acting on variation generated solely by spontaneous mutations that occurred during the experiment. Thus, the LTEE allows us to examine the effects of contingency that are inherent to the core evolutionary processes of mutation, selection, and drift.”

The environmental inducement to adapt is the use of a citrate in the plate, along with a very limited amount of the normal nutrient. E-coli are known to be able to use citrate as a nutrient once it is inside the cell, but lack a functional transport mechanism to bring it in from the outside. So in an environment high in citrate but low in normal nutrient, will the e-coli evolve a mechanism to transport the more available nutrient?

After more than 33,000 generations and “billions of mutations”, strains of Cit+ e-coli were found, and the colonies became dominant, although sharing the plates with original Cit- e-coli colonies.

The experiment was designed with built-in replicability by having frozen samples of the cultures at every 500 generations. This allowed the experimenters to “rerun” the experiment through the development of the Cit+ strain, to see if it would repeat. If it did repeat, it would mean that a prior, “historical” event must have been present. The Cit+ strain did, in fact, appear in the repeated experiments. This means that even with a different mutation experience, the Cit+ strain appearance was inevitable in these colonies.

And in fact, that is what was found.

“What physiological mechanism has evolved that allows aerobic growth on citrate? E. coli should be able to use citrate as an energy source after it enters the cell, but it lacks a citrate transporter that functions in an oxygen-rich environment. One possibility is that the Cit+ lineage activated a ‘‘cryptic’’ transporter (41), that is, some once-functional gene that has been silenced by mutation accumulation. This explanation seems unlikely to us because the Cit+ phenotype is characteristic of the entire species, one that is very diverse and therefore very old. We would expect a cryptic gene to be degraded beyond recovery after millions of years of disuse. A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been coopted for citrate transport under oxic conditions. This transporter may previously have transported citrate under anoxic conditions (43) or, alternatively, it may have transported another substrate in the presence of oxygen. The evolved changes might involve gene regulation, protein structure, or both (61).

“In any case, our study shows that historical contingency can have a profound and lasting impact under the simplest, and thus most stringent, conditions in which initially identical populations evolve in identical environments. Even from so simple a beginning, small happenstances of history may lead populations along different evolutionary paths. A potentiated cell took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.”

The results are therefore indeterminate in the sense of knowing whether a new feature has been developed, or a long dormant one has been re-enabled, epigenetically. Until this is resolved, the appellation “evolution” – in the long-term, new feature, new creature sense – is not appropriate. The use of “evolution” to cover any change whatsoever is the sense in which it seems to be used here. I don't agree that it is less parsimonious to assume that a dormant gene is being revived; I think that testing should be done first, and conclusions drawn later.

This is a well designed experiment that deserves watching as new sub-experiments are designed and implemented, and as more definitive DNA analysis resolves the issue of what the Cit+ mechanism actually consists.

4. The Wall Lizards of Pod Mrcaru

These lizards are not indigenous to the island of Pod Mrcaru and were introduced 36 years ago. In 2008, a paper was released regarding a study of the lizard [34], and its changes from the "ancestral population". Most of the changes were morphological, involving the shape of head and jaw, with some changes in social habits too. But the most striking claim is that the lizards had developed a new feature: a cecal valve in their digestive tract, which did not exist in the ancestral population. The cecal valve has utility because it allows the slowing of digestion, which is needed to accommodate the increase in the vegetative proportion of the diet (similar to valves in ruminant digestive tracts which differentiate “stomachs”).

 According to the paper,

"The relatively large fraction of leaves included into the diet of
lizards in the introduced population of Pod Mrcaru has apparently
also resulted in the evolution of cecal valves, a structure
previously unreported for this species and rare in this family and
scleroglossan lizards in general".

Since this occurred in roughly 30 generations, it is being referred to as rapid evolution. And being an apparently new organic type feature, many internet evolution apologists seem to accept this as having evolved and being absolute proof of "observed evolution". However, this blatantly ignores other possibilities, chief among which is that the gene for the cecal valve pre-existed and was turned off by negative mutation during disuse of the feature.

This could be supported or falsified by finding the differences in DNA between the Pod Mrcaru population and its ancestral population, and thus determining if the gene is novel, or if it is previously there, but turned off.

I contacted an author of the paper, Dr. Duncan J. Irschick, to ask if the DNA testing had been done to determine the genetic source of the cecal valve. Dr. Irschick replied, "not yet!"

That seems to put closure on the current claim: it is not known if the "new feature" is actually new, or if it pre-existed in an OFF state, even 6 years later. The fact that a tiny percentage of close relatives do have the feature suggests that the feature might have been necessary prehistorically, but was shut off as the lizard's environment shifted toward high populations of insects, relieving the need for plant matter. Parsimony suggests that the valve did not evolve from nothing in 30 generations, especially given a more likely source.

I also received this message from Dr. Anthony Herrel [35].

We're still working on getting a handle on those questions. We are
currently analyzing the microbial communities in the lizards from the
two islands. A next step will be to raise lizards from the two islands
in a common environment to test whether the presence of the cecal
valves is genetic or not. Once we have understood these elements we
can then ask the question pertaining to the underlying molecular

Sorry for not being able to address your question yet, but we're
working on it.


The response from these authors has been rapid, kind and polite. While I'm not sure why the molecular analysis must wait on the outcome of these tests; it will be interesting to see what they produce.

The possibility remains that the genetics already were available, and that were switched in when needed.

Conclusions regarding the evidence for evolution: No reported evidence of which I am aware shows mutation and selection as causal for changes in a biological population. When “evolution” is reported, it has always been either misreported or micro-evolution (remaining within the original genome) and neither speciation nor a significant new biological feature which was previously not in the genome.

Holes in the Meta-Hypotheses

But there is still more to be considered here. The Modern Synthesis addressed evolution at a meta-hypothetical level which is far removed from physical causality. It is said to represent a unifying theory for biology, and is the defining story of the saga of life in our universe despite being able to give no specific causation and no prediction for biological outcomes. And it does not even attempt to address some very important issues regarding life and living things.  Here is a partial list of issues which evolutionary theory as rigidified in the Modern Synthesis has not and cannot address:

1. None of the characteristics of being human at the whole organism level: agency; intellect; qualia; empathy; grief; intentionality; comprehension.

2. Abiogenesis (first life).  And the logical failure of the Central Dogma.

3. Common Descent for the Cambrian explosion.

4. Information content: non-compressible, semantic, possessing utility for both creation and activation.

5. Complexity of original cell.

6. Communication Groups, codes, channels.

7. Protein factories; necessary in prokaryotes.

8. Eukaryotic integration of multi-cellular coherence.

9. Complete lack of empirical rigor; testability, falsifiability.

10. Radical adherence to a belief system without support from objective knowledge.

These issues will be discussed in subsequent chapters with regard to the Extended Synthesis and the new meta-hypotheses which replace the Modern Synthesis.

The advent of the Extended Synthesis marks the death of the Modern Synthesis and all its confident claims, and demarks a new era of differing claims, made with similar confidence. These new claims will be addressed in upcoming chapters.

“My skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with the regard to the origin of life.”
Thomas Nagel [36]

“Even a summary investigation of the history of discontents with the [Modern] Synthesis suggests that it is first and foremost a loosely and flexibly structured network of concepts and models rather than a ‘theory’ according to old-style hypothetico-deductivism.”
Werner Callebaut [37] [emphasis in original].

“There is no need to placate the ghost of neo-Darwinism; it will not haunt evolutionary theory much longer”
D. J. Futayama, [38]

“If, as seems obvious to me, the [Modern] Synthesis has no essence, its extensions are negotiable.”
Werner Callebaut [39]

Despite this, the public is constantly hounded with charges of anti-science if they harbor any doubts about evolution:

“Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.

[Doubt is] equivalent of trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates.

You're just not gonna get the right answer; your whole world will be a mystery instead of an exciting place.

Your world becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. Here are these ancient dinosaur bones, these fossils; here is radio activity; here are distant stars which are just like our star but are at a distant point in their life cycle. The idea of Deep Time, of billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview just becomes crazy, it’s just untenable, it’s self-inconsistent.

And I say to the grownups, if you wanna deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it, because we need them, we need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can… we need engineers! We need people that can build stuff and solve problems.
Bill Nye, The Science Guy [40]

Fossils and deep time are essential causal factors and their acceptance is necessary for “scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future”? Why? And how, exactly, do engineers depend on fossils and deep time to perform their intellectual tasks? Well, they do not. Nye is a TV regular, and yet is one of the most egregiously ignorant of the radical public apologists for evolution. There must be an underlying reason, an emotionally driven cause for those like Nye whose vision of the future is that society cannot survive without evolution as doctrinally ubiquitous. Like Nye, they appear to live in actual palpable fear of the denial of evolution as fact.

This aspect of evolution is a psychological and socio-political issue, not a scientific hypothesis. It will be considered in an upcoming chapter.

1. Charles Darwin; “On The Origin Of The Species”, 1859

2. Michael Shermer, quoted by Jerry Coyne; “Why Evolution is True”; Viking, 2009, p xv.

3. Sean B. Carroll; “The Making of the Fittest”; Norton;2006; p 35.

4. Steven Weinberg, theoretical physicis;, “To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science”; HarperCollins, 2015;  p202.

5. Stephen Jay Gould, “The Structure of Evoutionary Theory”; Belknap/Harvard Univ. Press; 2002; p 520, 521.

6. Ibid., p198.

7.Ibid., p 522.

8. Ibid. p 320.

9. National Academy of Sciences; Institute of Medicine; “Science, Evolution, and Creationism”, 2008; p10.

10. Stephen Jay Gould, “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory”, p 75.

11. Ibid. p 994 – 999.

12.Ibid., p 525.

13. J. C. Sanford; “Genetic Entropy”; FMS Pubs.; 2005;  p33; (Morton, Crow and Muller, 1956)

14. Ibid. p34; (kondrashov, 2002; Nachman and Crowell, 2000) A nucleotide is one bit of information in DNA and RNA, which is contained in the 4 bit quadruplet of DNA and RNA.  DNA and RNA have 64 letters in their alphabet.

15.Ibid. p35.

16. p 41.

17. A. T.  Bernardes, 1996 ; Physica ACTA 230:156-173.

18. Hubert B. Yockey; “Information theory, Evvoution, and the Origin of Life”; Cambridge, 2005; p38
19. Cooper-Hausman, p200-201; 213.

20. M. Kimura, 1979; PNAS 76:3440-3444.

21. J. C. Sanford; Genetic Entropy; p 32.

22. Both graphs are from Sanford’s “Genetic Entropy”, p31, 32.

23. Pigliucci and Muller, Eds.; “Evolution; the Extended Synthesis”; MIT Press, 2010; p13, 14.

24. Ibid.; p14. (top)

25. Ibid.; p14. (bottom)

26. Brand Blanchard; “Reason and Analysis”; Paul Carus Lectures, Series 12, 1962; Open court Pubs; p213, 214.

27. Science Against Evolution; ; 1999.

28. Jerry Coyne; “Why Evolution Is True”; Penguin, 2009; p222.

29. National Academy of Sciences; Institute of Medicine; “Science, Evolution, and Creationism”, 2008; p11.

30. Jonathan Weiner, “The Beak of the Finch”, Vintage, 1994, pg 9.

31. R. B. Grant and P. R. Grant; “The Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population”, 1989; Univ of Chicago Press; pp282-285.

32. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 96, pp. 5107–5110, April 1999.

34. “Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource”  PNAS, 105 12, 3-25-08, p4792.

35. personal communication.

36. Thomas Nagel, “Mind and Cosmos: Why The Materialist neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”, Oxford Univ. Press, 2012; p7.

37. Werner Callebaut;  Extended Synthesis, p 457.

38. D. J. Futayama, DJ, “Sturm und Drang”; Evolution 42; p222. Per Callebaut, TES, p456.

39. Werner Callebaut; Extended Synthesis, p458.