K.U. and the Big Lie 2

Leonard Magruder
06/20/2005

(continuing from "The Great Evolution Mystery."1983)

"The main problem of the mechanism of evolution is far from being solved. The dogma which has dominated most biological thinking for more than a century is collapsing. ( this was clear in 1983 !) This marks a turning point in the history of science , one of those "paradigm" shifts which transform our world-view just as the notion that the sun, not the earth , was the center of the solar system did."

"Though we have this clue in the bone-structure of the crossopterygian fin there are no intermediate forms between the finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world. Once again the critical evidence for Darwinian gradualism is missing.There is always that larger question of whether such an impressive array of coordinated changes could have taken place by chance, and done so without leaving in the fossil record a single intermediate form to prove the point. As Darwin himself complained, "Where are the infinitely numerous transitional links that would illustrate the action of natural selection ?" There aren't any."

"Looking back over the evidence we see that in each of the major steps there is an almost complete absence of fossils capable of supporting the claim that the new forms arose by the gradual accumulation of minute changes. Eggs are first found fully developed, so are feathers. Placental mammals appear simultaneously in twelve groups. Actually there are some twenty-six groups of mammals the origins of which are completely obscure. As for fishes, "We do not know the direct ancestors of the fish, "says Professor Lehman. The origin of the insects is a complete mystery. Flowering plants is no better. Said the ardent Darwinist G.G. Simpson, "The absence of transitional forms is an almost universal phenomenon , true of invertebrates, vertebrates and plants.The line making connection with common ancestry is not known in even one instance." The rodents, he notes, appear suddenly, already equipped with their specialized gnawing teeth. As for mammals, "In all 32 orders of mammals the break is so sharp and the gaps so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."Of the whales and dolphins, Simpson says, "They appear in the fossil record without any antecedents." So it is rather remarkable that Darwinians can dogmatically continue to assert that these major changes arose by the accumulation of minute differences."

"School biology gives the impression that evolution marched steadily and implacably onward and upward. That is not true. Many large alterations of rate have occured and are essentially unexplained. In fact, no new phyla have emerged since the Cambrian age, 500 million years ago. 

The emergence of new classes within phyla ceased by the Lower Paleozoic, around 400 million years ago. These are very puzzling facts that pose great difficulties for the theory of natural selection. If Darwin was right in thinking that the small variations in time led to larger ones, we might expect new orders, new classes, and new phyla to form with increasing frequency. But that is nowhere near the case."

(Suggestions of Intelligent Design in 1983)

"Another insoluable problem for evolution theory is how and why did a balance organ become an organ of hearing ? As Dr. Van Bergeijk points out, "What prompts the fish to begin developing a sensory apparatus that will respond to a stimulus about the very existence of which the fish knows nothing ?" This is the most convincing evidence of all - the appearance of structures before the need for them arises. If this really happens, it completely explodes the theory of natural selection, and we need no further evidence to undermine it- we need a new theory.

As Professor Grasse points out, "It is hard to see how natural selection could have presided unaided over such delicate fittings as the double-lock of the ant-lion's mouth, the hinges of the bee's wings, the push-button of Napas, which have to be perfect if they function at all. Many of these modifications possess an all-or-nothing character, which makes it very difficult to understand how natural selection could have produced them. The hinge was not of the slightest value until it formed and worked. How could it have appeared by "infinitely small gradations ?" In the preceeding chapters we have seen at least a dozen areas where the theroy of evolution by natural selection seems either indequate , implausible, or defnitely wrong."

(In our time the same question is asked by Behe of his molecular machines, which point to intelligent design. The only way out of this dilemma for evolutionists is to show pathways in each instances, and nowhere in the literature, says Behe, are there any such explanations. The facts suggesting intelligent design have been around for decades. Evolutionists just don't mention them to the public. )

"The pontifical assurances of orthodox evolutionists have obscured the fact that the number of highly competant biologists who have voiced doubts, or actually declared themselves in support of directiveness, is quite large and has existed ever since Darwin. In 1940, for example, the German biology professor von Huene concluded "there was a superior principle governing and directing the whole." The Swiss biologist H. Wehrli after his lifetime study of horses said, "The process of transformation seems to be directed and not at all caused by random mutation and selection," also, "The phylogenetic transfromation of the Alpine marmot cannot be interpreted as caused by randon mutation and selection either , one is definitely inclined to assume immanent forces transforming the animal type in the direction which began initially." Said biologist K.Eurlen "It is absolutely clear that adaptation and selection cannot be regarded as the essential principles of phylogenisis, since in these cases it proceeds from adapted to non-adaptive types and it produces disadvantageous organs from useful structures."

Continuing
"Darwin's seminal work was "The Origin of Species." Said G.G. Simpson, the greatest evolutionist of the last century, "Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work,"

The origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has been the main focus of attention and is beset with endless controversies. It was the broader evolutionary changes which monopolizes attention. -could the accumulation of minute variations account for the major steps in evolution ? In the last 60 years or so speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem. In 1922 the British geneticist Wiliak Bateson wrote, "In dim outline evolution is evident enough. But that particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious." Sixty years later we are , if anything, worse off, research having only revealed complexity within complexity. Says professor Hampton Asarsn of Washington University, "Speciation is the major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology."The theory declares that an organism will become modified so as to function better in the circumstances in which they are given, in which they live. Why then do we find wide variations of type where the environment is identical. The only value of the word 'niche' is linguistic. It makes it possible to write about adaptation without defiing the cirumstances to which adaptation is occuring." Looking at the conventional account of speciation in cold blood it seems perfectly obvious that something is missing. Evolutionists are generally agreed that speciation occurs before adaptation, thanks to some genetic shake-up , organisms evolve a new structure which then enables them to occupy a new niche or function more effectiverly in their existing niche. They then may adapt to the new situation. Says world-class evolutionist Douglas Futuyama,"The time honored diagrams of evolutionary change are probably wrong." The one crushing fact that we do not yet understand is that evolution is clearly going somewhere. Organisms are becoming more complicated, their capacities more sophisticated. Species formation absolutely fails to explain why this should be. Behavior too beome more sophisticated, Why should this be ?"

"Then there is the enormous problem of DNA. It contains a code. It contains information which cannot be shown to have come from anything prior or material, yet it had to be there from the beginning. And the probablitities involved in the tranformtion of a code so one species can become another are of the order of the number of atoms in the whole universe. 
The fossil record stops about 870 million years ago and there is a discontiunuity, a major shift in the story that constitutes the most baffling of all Darwinian puzzles. The foremost unsolved puzzle of palentology is the appearance of multicellular creatures - Metazoa - after billions of years in which the only life-forms were unicellular. Molecules came togehter, not in clots or clotted masses or chains, but in formed neat and purposeful patterns."

"Then there is photosynthesis, It is very hard to swallow the idea that chance - or rather a long series of chances - built up such an extremely elaborate mechanism, unless there was some inner necessity, some built-in primordial disposition to consolidate it into such matters. It is past belief that anything so intricate and idiosyncratic should appear by chance. 

Then there is the contrast between the prokayryote and eukaryote cell. "Without question the greatest single evolutionary discontinuity to be found in the present-day living world. How this advance was made remains one of the greatest single mysteries in the whole course of evolution,"- Professor W.S. Bullough of London University."

In ending his book Taylor asks,

" How does the the official account of evolution stand up ? (in 1983) The short answer is that natual seletion accounts very well for many of the minor changes in structure . (microvevolution). But as to the origin of variations, due to chance, (macroevolution), this aspect of evolutionary theory is deeply unsatisfactory. As the mathematicians have proven, there is simply not enough time for all the needed modifications to occur by chance.Then there are the odd changes of tempo, some lines have hardly changed at all over millions of years. But the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutioary change , plus, many of the mamallian sequences appear to have started up simultaneously. In some cases organisms abandon their alleged advantages, such as in the case of birds who give up flying. The remarkable absence of intermediate forms is a disaster for evolutionists. A problem of a more philosophical nature is the continual increase in complexity Then there is the mystery of behavior. 

Darwinism is not so much a theory, as a sub-section of some theory as yet unformulated. It greatest weakness it that it cannot be proved or unproved. As the great biologist von Bertalanffy concluded, "I think the fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently unverifiable, has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds." Far too many facts remain unexplicable. The attempt to present Darwinism as an established dogma , immune from criticism, is disintegrating."


Just think . It looks like Kansas is about to play a major role in the future science and intellectual climate of the world ! What the School Board of Kansas is probably going to do in 2005 is launch a cultural and scientific revolution, based on truth, which is, that in the world of biology there is discontinuity, just as there is discontinuity at the level of quantum mechanics in physics. They had it right in 1999, but evolutionists at K.U., along with the local media, "The Daily Kansan" and the "The Lawrence Journal - World," -- hid the real issues from the public, and reversed the 1999 decision. By 2005, so bankrupt was this opposition that it couldn't even put together a scientific defense of evolution for the Topeka hearings, and people like McDonald were reduced to whimpering mantras.

Go Kansas ! A pioneer in scientific advancement. The whole world will come here to learn the truth. 

The true situation as regards evolution today is totally summed up by the noted entolologist W.R. Thompson in his introduction to the centenary edition of Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” 
“This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to defend scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credibility with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”

It is all so simple. All the School Board of every state in the Union has to do is hold up these quotes, or those in my longer article, (or even the issues raised in that 1983 book,) and ask of the true-believer evolutionists, “Are you really asking us to hide all this from our students?”
That is what this is all about - deception. Connie Morris put it well. "They need to understand there are many criticisms, and they're backed up." That is the truth. The evolutionists say ,"Science has rejected these criticisms as invalid." That is an outrageous, shameful lie.

Kansas is going to liberate its students, and there will no longer be any point in trying to talk to K.U. evolutionists. Because of their philosophical agenda, their metaphysical materialism, they can't face facts. 

They refuse to admit what everybody else can see, that the following problems have proven utterly intractable not only for the mutation-selection mechanism but also for any other undirected natural process proposed to date: the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the absence of the transitional forms in the fossil record, the biological Big Bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines, and the existence of specified complexity.