Mutant spiderman

Forklaring: Til venstre en bakterie som efter 3 milliarder tilfældige mutationer udvikler sig til at blive et menneske, som efter nogle få ektra mutationer bliver til Spider-Man. (Under billederne:) Har nogen bemærket, hvordan den anden ændring er uendelig mere sandsynlig end den første?
Det er min erfaring, at de fleste mennesker, som tror på Darwinistisk evolution eller Darwins udvinklingslære ved meget lidt om hvad teorien faktisk siger og hvordan denne evolution tænkes at virke. De tror, at den helt sikkert virker, men når du stiller spørgsmål angående detaljerne, får du ikke meget ud af dem. Og hvis du gør, så vil det mest sandsynligt vise sig, at det de siger faktisk ikke er sandt.

Teorien om evolution gennem naturlig udvælgelse er ligesom rige folkeminder fulde af vedholdende myter, som nægter at dø, uanset hvor mange gange, du viser at de ikke holder. Vi har et meget fejlbehæftet uddannelsessystem, som fremmer det etablerede dogme i stedet for seriøst at se på den videnskab, som det påstås underbygger den og at stille spørgsmål ved dette dogme mødes ofte med aggressivitet.

Du går i skole og bliver serveret for standardversionen af EvolutionIsTrue™ (Bogstavelig oversættelse: EvolutionErSandt). Du bliver med overbevisning fortalt, at den er "bevist" (selv om ingen kan vise dig noget egentligt bevis), og hvis du er som de fleste mennesker, stiller du sandsynligvis aldrig spørgsmål ved den eller tænker ret meget over det senere og denne fuldstændig falske ide om evolution fortsætter med at blive forstærket.

Du tror, du ved meget mere om evolution, fordi du gik på universitetet. selv om virkeligheden er, at du ved præcist lige så meget - eller så lidt - som universitetet ønsker, at du skal vide. Hvis du møder nogen, som virkelig har foretaget noget forskning inden for området og fortæller dig noget andet end standardversionen, ler du bare og overvejer ikke engang, at der kunne være noget om det.

Men hvor meget er standardversionen faktisk rodfæstet i virkeligheden? Og hvor meget har den populære udgave, som alle "kender", noget at gøre med den virkelige version, som videnskabsfolk arbejder med i deres laboratorier? Lad os se nogle få eksempler på, hvordan det, som præsenteres for os, ikke har ret meget med virkeligheden at gøre, og hvad det gør ved vores sind og vores måde at tænke på.

Kommentar: Delvist oversat af fra How the Incoherent Theory of Evolution Distorts Our Thinking


Rational thinking vs. thinking distorted by often repeated dogma

The Word 'Evolve' Is Regularly Misused

Darwinists have been so brainwashed by their religious belief in evolution that they're almost incapable of saying "this organism has this or that". Instead, they make sure to say "this organism has evolved this or that", even though there isn't a shred of evidence that any such evolution had occurred at any time.
This is rather problematic, because whenever you read a text like that, you're being misled into believing that this evolution did happen and that there must be some evidence of it because the text gives you no reason to think otherwise.

Yet in almost all cases (the rare exceptions relating strictly to micro-evolution), this is simply assumed, and it's exactly the same as if the Creationists presented the sentence as "in this organism, God created this or that". (Which would, of course, make all evolutionists rabidly furious.) It is selling an assumption as fact, which is extremely unscientific and toxic to the mind. It's a lie. Most modern texts about the history of living organisms give the impression that evolution is true and proven, simply by presenting such misleading statements, and this is why many people falsely believe in evolution. They accept authoritative statements without ever checking the facts.

If you read a book promoting evolution and actually pay attention to the evidence given to you to support the theory it's presenting, you'll find that usually there's little to nothing. It just says something like "giraffes have evolved long necks" and explains how that's useful. Not a word about how the neck evolved, and no evidence that it actually did. For all we know, giraffes have had long necks since whenever giraffes started existing. Sure, we know some other species that sort of look like giraffes have shorter necks, but the only thing that proves is that there are other species that sort of look like giraffes and have shorter necks. It says absolutely nothing about the connection between the species. So saying that this long neck has 'evolved' is based on nothing but the pre-formed belief that it has. It has no connection to the truth or even to science, but that's what you get in 99% of all texts on evolution.

In most cases, the word 'evolve' should either just be dropped or, if there's evidence of a change over time actually happening, replaced with 'adapt'. We hear things like 'viruses evolve rapidly'. But what have they really 'evolved'? Are there any new genes? No. Any new organs? No. Just little workarounds around environmental problems, mostly by deleting genes and making the genome smaller and less adaptive in the long run. So a much more accurate phrase would be 'viruses adapt rapidly', or, even better, 'viruses mutate rapidly'. But no matter how much and how fast viruses mutate, they have yet to mutate into anything that's not a virus (in which case the word 'evolve' would become truly meaningful).

To put this into perspective, let's say you've had a car for 10 years. It's a bit different from what it was like 10 years ago. There are some scratches, a few things broken or damaged, some things don't work as smoothly as they used to, and nothing is as clean as when you bought it. On the other hand, the seat may be more comfortable as it's been molded to fit your body better, and there may be some quirks that happened along the way that you actually like. If we were to use Darwinian language, we would say that your car has 'evolved'. But does that really make sense? Is your car better than when you bought it? Does it have anything new and useful that you didn't add yourself? Can it do more things than in the beginning? Most likely, it can do less.

Of course if we understand 'evolution' as just any change over time, then the usage is correct (yet the informative power of such statements is next to zero, as all we learn from them is that 'things change'). But in the context of Darwin's theory, the word implies that species have 'evolved' from other species. For this, there is no evidence. If you think there is, please show us. I keep challenging people to do so, but while many have argued with my conclusions, we're all still waiting for a single piece of evidence that one species evolved into a different one.

Lenski's experiment with E. Coli is often cited as evidence of evolution. So let me show you in a simple diagram what this experiment produced:

E. Coli ---> Evolution (we are told) ---> E. Coli

Amazing, right? And this is what every single piece of 'evidence for evolution' looks like. There's not a single case that ends with something that it did not begin with. 'E. Coli' has evolved into 'E. Coli adapted to different environment' by losing parts of its genome. And that's after some 60,000 generations.

When university students and professors were asked whether they believe in evolution, they all said yes, but when pressed to provide a single example of one species evolving into a different one, nobody could come up with anything.

It's even more silly when it's said that organisms have 'evolved' a certain kind of behaviour. Why not just say they've learned something? Should we say humans have evolved making phone calls, playing chess, or staring at pictures in art galleries? Because this is what we regularly hear about pretty much everything animals do. It's like some people have trouble making a sentence about biology without the word 'evolve' embedded in it. The problem is that this inaccurate use of language leads to inaccurate thinking, distorted perspective, and wrong conclusions. The video linked above shows how strongly convinced people are that evolution is true while being unable to justify this belief in a substantial way. Where does this conviction come from? Mostly from endless repetition of things that aren't true.

To Hell with God

Of course one of the most common evolution-related misconceptions is the idea that if you're not a Darwinist/evolutionist, you must be religious. In the US, you're automatically assumed to be a Creationist because things are always slightly dumber there than anywhere else. I have never given anyone any reason to believe that I'm religious, and I've never written anything to that effect in my articles, but there's always some moron who just pops up and claims that I present a religious view or something like that. It's probably impossible to explain anything to people who exhibit that level of narrow-mindedness and/or delusion, but we can try.

Not only am I not religious, I've always disliked religion. For a long time, I downright hated Christianity. (I guess I'm more tolerant these days, and my hate is reserved for Google exclusively.) I personally think religion is stupid and people should get over it at some point. But I draw a line between religion and, for lack of a better word, spirituality, which could be described as pretty much anything that isn't materialism. Spirituality is more or less a view that there's more than just matter, and it considers consciousness a separate thing from matter, not dependent on it. Religion, on the other hand, is when you make up a lot of silly stuff, order others to believe it, and turn spirituality into dogmatic bullshit. Materialism is kind of the opposite extreme, but just as stupid as religion. Religious Creationists and materialist Darwinists are, in my view, both completely delusional, clinging to a dogma that our science and common sense should have put to sleep long ago. We would know a lot more about the history and origin of life if we had catapulted members of these two groups into outer space decades ago. They are the two greatest impediments to progress in this area.

The notion that if you're not a Darwinist, you must be religious is about as dumb as the notion that if you're not black, you must be white, as if other colours don't exist. The scientific evidence shows pretty clearly that one species can never evolve into another one, at least not by means of random mutations (a completely idiotic idea if you think about it for a few seconds), but at the same time there's no evidence that God has anything to do with it. If you find a watch in the forest, to use this well-known illustration, why the hell would your only options regarding where it came from be that either it had evolved from the naturally occurring materials in the forest or it was put there by God? Unless you're stupid, like Richard Dawkins, you can tell the watch was designed by a mind, but why would you immediately jump to the conclusion that the designer was God? Of course nobody makes that leap of faith regarding a watch, but many people do so when it comes to living organisms. I suppose some people are so limited that they cannot conceive of any other kind of intelligence than human and divine.

What's a bit startling though, is that the conclusion that if I don't believe in evolution I must think that God created living organisms, comes not so much from religious people as from defenders of Darwinism. I guess it's their way of not having to deal with the facts and evidence. If they can mark you as religious, thus in their minds 'crazy', they don't have to seriously consider what you say. If they were forced to look at the actual evidence, it would become obvious that they're the ones believing in nonsensical ideas, so they look for any excuse that allows them to just ignore you.

It's strange that people equate intelligent design with God when pretty much all (non-living) designed things that we know of were designed by humans. We could also find a few things designed by animals. Clearly, intelligence and design can be attributed to intelligence that isn't God. Of course life on Earth couldn't have been designed by any Earthlings, but why assume there couldn't have been any other intelligent (non-godly) beings in the Universe who could have put living organisms here on Earth? Can intelligent beings outside of Earth not exist because we haven't seen them? Well, we've never seen life arise out of dead matter either, yet Darwinists have no trouble believing that one! (To them, Jesus raising the dead is a ridiculous idea, but dead matter becoming alive on its own by accident is cool. And they think they're the smart ones). So what's the issue here?
Why assume a religious motivation is behind any effort to dismantle the Darwinian fairy tale?

Whether there is God or not is up for debate, but I certainly don't believe in a God who listens to your prayers, puts living creatures on planets on Saturdays, and messes with everybody for petty reasons, like that shithead Yahweh. There's no evidence for such a God, and the concept makes no sense. Either way, anything that's designed or created has to come from consciousness, not matter. That's what our experience tells us. Where did this consciousness come from, then? That is certainly an interesting question, but one that may be impossible for us to answer. For all we know, consciousness has always been here, in one form or another. I mean, materialists believe matter has always been here, since the beginning of the Universe, so why not consciousness? It's not like they have any explanation for where matter came from that would make any sense. What is their theory? First there was nothing, not even time. Then, suddenly (notice that both 'then' and 'suddenly' require time), shit exploded, even though there was no shit in the first place and even though an explosion requires a trigger (when nothing existed) and time (which didn't exist), and voilà, suddenly there was all the matter there is now. Wow. Magic, anyone? This is exactly as retarded as the idea of life arising out of dead matter accidentally. Nothing about it makes any sense. And the people who believe this garbage tell me no conscious beings could have put living cells on Earth because... because what, exactly? Please.

There Is No Survival of the Fittest

A better version of this term would be 'elimination of the least fit'. The fittest usually survive (except for accidents, murders, and other such things), but so do the somewhat less fit, and even most of the moderately fit. Depending on the species, even many of the rather unfit survive, which we can see best in the case of humans. Natural selection can eliminate the totally unfit, but it cannot effectively separate the fittest from the moderately fit, except maybe in a few species where the competition is harsh. But if natural selection only works in a few species, then it can hardly be considered the mechanism responsible for all of evolution.
women selection
What is natural selection doing about the differences in the image above? Absolutely nothing. They all survive and reproduce. Yet we're supposed to believe that a change in one nucleotide is what drives evolution because that single mutation drastically improves survival rate. If one of those women had horns or wings or a tail, her survival chances still wouldn't change significantly, and that would require hundreds to thousands of mutations. Given that large variations of all kinds persist in species, the idea that miniscule differences could drive evolution makes no sense. Fat people survive. Lazy people survive. Stupid people survive. Survival of the fittest as the driving force of evolution is a fairy tale.

And if I ask you, "Which one of the four women is likely to produce the most offspring?", you'll realise not only that there's no way for you to tell, but that it's something that doesn't even have anything to do with any kind of fitness. It's mostly a matter of the woman's decision about how many children she wants to have. And not a single one of them will have as many offspring as she can produce, which is what Darwinism claims to be the norm.

And let's not forget that to even talk about 'survival of the fittest', we have to ignore what Darwinism considers to be 'fitness', since it derives fitness from the number of offspring produced. So according to the evolutionists, the fittest survive, and the fittest are the ones who survive, so basically they're saying that those who survive are the ones who survive. And this isn't the only tautology in evolution 'science'. Yes, the theory of evolution is intellectually on the level of a four-year-old (including throwing tantrums when others disagree).

Natural Selection Cannot Create Anything

Evolutionists have elevated natural selection to a godlike status. They sometimes (though not always) accept that mutations, being random, can't really create much of anything and instead have a rather destructive tendency, so they relegate the creative powers to natural selection. But this is a fallacy (surprise!), stemming from the desperate need to conjure up creative powers from somewhere (or rather, out of nowhere).

Natural selection can only act on what mutations produce, so with crappy raw material, there isn't much to build from. Garbage in, garbage out. If the input is random noise, the output can't be works of art. To use the example of the magic cube in the image near the top of this page - mutations do the scrambling, natural selection preserves 'good scrambles', if there happens to be such a thing, and proximity to a solved state correlates with higher chances of survival. Evolutionists believe that random mutations slowly solve the cube and selection preserves each progressively better stage. In reality, though, random mutations will never solve it in the first place, so natural selection can just helplessly watch how nothing happens. The notion of accidentally creating proteins by random mutations is like the notion of solving a 13x13x13 cube by random turning. It's only possible in fantasy novels like 'The Blind Watchmaker'.

Solving a magic cube is actually a good example of how naive the idea of 'cumulative selection' is. (Let's ignore that the term doesn't even make sense.) The cube is an example of a complex structure (the desired state requires many pieces to be in a specific configuration in relation to one another), and in order to solve all of it, some already solved parts must be first broken up in order to solve other parts, as anybody who can actually solve it will tell you. That's how complex systems work. Complexity isn't created by random accumulation of small steps. Complexity is created by coordinated accumulation of steps. It requires planning.

When solving the last layer of a 3x3x3, I usually end up with three edges needing to be switched around as the last phase of the process (image above). This requires 7 to 11 steps (turns), depending on the algorithm and counting of moves. In the middle of this algorithm, about half of the cube looks scrambled, even though I already had 51 of the 54 little squares in the right place. There's no step-by-step path to solving the cube by improving one square at a time. But that's the only way natural selection could play a role in such a process. Once I start the algorithm that actually solves the cube, all natural selection would see is a more scrambled cube. Complexity is by definition more than just accumulation of small steps one at a time. Again, it requires coordination and planning. And living creatures are the most complex things we know by far.

The process of solving the cube is similar to Darwinian evolution. Each turn is a mutation, and order increases in the process. But we can easily see that random mutations (random turns) never lead to solving the cube (you can try it), and natural selection would not only not help but actually actively prevent the cube from ever being solved, because progress requires multiple coordinated steps. And there is no evidence whatsoever to show that this is different for living organisms. The idea that every now and then, mutations produce something new, amazing, and complex is unrealistic. As I have written elsewhere, the chances of producing new genes by random mutations are practically nonexistent. And the chances that by modifying a functional gene, the gene will function better are extremely low as well. This usually only occurs when external conditions change and the organism needs to adapt to this change. This also means that the original function in its old form isn't optimal anymore, so changing the gene to something that works better under the new conditions actually becomes plausible, since there is now room for improvement. But nothing new is created on the genetic level, the mutations are very simple and few, and as far as we know, this only happens in very small (generally single-celled) organisms.

Even if an actual small advantage appears, natural selection has very little power to 'promote' this new change. The mutation can only be promoted by eliminating the non-mutants, but for this to happen, external conditions have to change drastically. (Like a new drug that kills certain bacteria.) Otherwise, why should the original organism that had been surviving just fine suddenly start dying off? The original one won't die just because a slightly improved one has appeared. Natural selection is not an active force that can push anything forward. It's not a force at all. It's just a posthumous statement that says, "This organism died before it could reproduce and thus didn't pass on its genes."

If the better variations were 'selected' and the worse ones were not, variability should always decrease. Everything should converge towards the most efficient variant. But we don't see that. We see a lot of variation. If some modifications are 'better', we can't help but observe that the inferior ones are still surviving. So natural selection isn't really sorting it out. If it did, the term 'genetic disease' would not exist.

If the biggest and strongest gorilla in the pack has the most advantage, there should soon be only big and strong individuals, and if those are the desired qualities in general, new generations should, according to the evolutionary principles, keep increasing in size and strength. Why would there be a limit? But this is clearly not happening. So not only are no new genes being produced, but even the desired qualities soon reach a threshold that they don't cross, even if it were advantageous to do so.

As I mentioned in the previous article, animal breeders know well that these limits exist. And in fact, there's an observed phenomenon described as 'return to average'. Not only does the improvement of a certain feature stop at some point, but leaving things to nature, over time the feature has a tendency to return to average values. This goes even so far that crossbreeding blind mutants at some point produces individuals who can see, even though the ability to see should have been destroyed. (This confuses and embarrasses the heck out of Darwinists, so you probably won't hear them talking about it.) So if human effort tries to push evolution 'forward', nature tends to return things back to the original design, contrary to the evolutionist belief.

Natural selection cannot create anything. It can't even take one feature over a certain threshold that seems somehow inbuilt into the organism. All it can do is 'weed out the weak', and even that doesn't work in the case of many species. If anything, natural selection tends to prevent change rather than promote it.

"If a Little Is Possible, Anything Is Possible, Given Enough Time"

If the theory of evolution can be credited with something, it's its persistence in clinging to irrational ideas that would be immediately thrown out in any other field. Regularly mixing up things mutations do with things Darwinists imagine mutations can do (but are really impossible) is unfortunately something that happens all the time. The inability of most evolutionists to understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is mind-boggling. So is the idea that given enough time, we can extrapolate infinitely.

There are some serious limitations to what an organism can become by mutations. A horse can 'evolve' slightly longer legs, but it will never evolve legs ten metres long, even if it was useful. As I have said, things tend to return towards a size range that's natural for the species. And while a horse can mutate to be larger or smaller, or to have longer legs, harder hooves, longer mane, or bigger teeth, there's no way it can evolve wings. There's just no genetic material for that, and creating the genetic material accidentally is impossible.

The lack of realism in the ideas of evolutionists is startling. If you play with sand at the beach, we all know you can build a sand castle. But we also all know you can't build a ten metres tall oak tree with all the complex branches and leaves and everything. There are laws of physics and properties of sand that prevent that. So if we can all understand this when building things out of sand, why can't certain people understand it in the case of evolution and stubbornly insist that anything can evolve out of nothing, despite being unable to explain how?

Evolutionists imagine horses could evolve wings. After all, they believe that's what happened with dinosaurs - some of them evolved wings and became birds. But horses aren't made of plasticine. They can't start growing wings from their backs just because somebody like Richard Dawkins thinks they can. Wings don't just arise from shaping the skin on one's back in small steps. That's a completely idiotic idea. Wings require all kinds of different tissues that require very specific genes. The mutations happen on the nucleotide level, not by something changing shape externally. It's time evolutionists stopped ignoring how biology works.

The other problem with the 'given enough time' argument is that we simply don't have enough time. Even all the time in the world isn't enough to realistically create even one protein by chance. It's time evolutionists learned to understand numbers.

Extrapolating from micro-evolution to macro-evolution is like saying that if you can eat an apple, then given enough time, you could eat a whole planet. You can't, for a million reasons. Limits for what's possible do exist. Wishful thinking won't make impossible things happen. This sort of errors in thinking is, however, the hallmark of Darwinism.

Scientific Consensus, My Arse

If someone tries to convince you that a scientific theory is true by telling you there's a 'scientific consensus' or that '(all) scientists agree' on it, you know they are desperate. This argument is used when pointing to evidence is impossible or has failed. If it's impossible, it's because there is no evidence. If it has failed, it suggests there is no convincing evidence. So as a last resort, the argument that there's a 'scientific consensus' is used. But that is, of course, no argument. It's just reference to authority. It's kind of like saying, "If you don't agree with me, I'm gonna call my daddy, and he'll punch you in the face, and that will show you!" It's a childish behaviour of hiding behind authority, real or imagined, and avoiding the real issue.

Of course, as we all know, throughout history, there had been a scientific consensus on lots of things that turned out to be wrong, so it doesn't really mean anything. But not only is 'scientific consensus' not a useful argument, it doesn't even exist in this case. Just check There are many scientists, biologists in particular, who see all kinds of problems with Darwinism and evolution. If there are a thousand scientists who disagree with you, claiming that there's a scientific consensus on what you're saying is really pathetic. It shows clear disconnection from reality. And the more aggressively and deceitfully a theory has to be pushed onto the public, the less solid we find its foundations to be. Invoking 'scientific consensus' is a desperate attempt at brainwashing.

"Evolution Is a Fact"

Is it? Based on what? Based on the Authority of the Church of Darwin?

Let's do a reality check.

- Information required for evolution is very specific. Mutations are random. Randomness doesn't produce specificity.
- Most mutations have little to no impact on survival but degrade the genetic code.
- Natural selection is powerless to eliminate non-mutants in most cases.
- Complexity can't be built by point mutations (even non-random) and selection.
- Creating new proteins randomly is virtually impossible. Evolution requires millions of them.
- Infinitely small steps are impossible due to the need for new genes, i.e. big steps.
- New genes require specific control regions, which requires coordination.
- Deleterious mutations overpower beneficial ones thousands to one.
- The fossil record doesn't support the Darwinist model at all.
- Vertebrae form from different parts in fish and mammal embryos, refuting common ancestry. (Among many other examples)
- Observations and experiments have only shown very basic adaptation and broken genes.
- Mutations induced by radiation don't result in any improvement, just damage.
- Similarity of structure is not evidence for evolution. BMW and VW didn't randomly mutate from a common ancestor either.
- The idea that given enough time, anything is possible, is a fallacy.
- There is exactly zero evidence that one kind of animal/plant has ever evolved into another.

If so many things show that evolution is highly improbable or even impossible, how can it be a 'fact'? Facts are not made by dogmatic claims. Facts require evidence. Nobody has ever demonstrated in any way that macro-evolution is even possible, never mind true.

Is There a Purpose or Not?

One of the truly bizarre things about Darwinism is how it treats purpose in evolution. It is very obvious in Richard Dawkins's books that while he claims that genes have no mind and no purpose, everything else he writes sounds as if he believes the opposite. If we are to truly accept that genes have no mind or goals, then nothing in Dawkins's books makes any sense. He tells us that genes manipulate organisms for their benefit, that humans or any other creatures are just tools for DNA to make more DNA, and so on. But manipulation and using tools requires intentions and goals, and there's no way to get out of this paradox. Dawkins tells us he doesn't literally mean genes are selfish, but he never tells us what exactly he does mean, and everything else he writes gives us the impression that genes truly are selfish in the usual sense of the word.

And of course it's not just Dawkins. It already started with Darwin. One of the key ideas of evolution by natural selection is that everything is accidental and there's no purpose, but every Darwinian explanation of biological facts betrays this idea. This was brought home in David Stove's book Darwinian Fairytales. He shows with painful meticulousness, looking at the issue from every possible angle, that the core Darwinian ideas are incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory. He also points to the fact that nobody has even tried to explain this glaring inconsistency. He shows that while many have said or implied, "Well, we don't really mean that literally", when they speak of 'selfish genes', 'manipulative genes', or adaptation for a specific purpose, nobody has ever explained what they all do mean by what they say.

This is a serious problem for the theory, because once you think about this a bit more, you can't help but wonder, "What is it that they're actually saying?" And there doesn't seem to be any satisfactory answer forthcoming. If adaptations are for a purpose, if genes manipulate us for their selfish goals, in any intelligible sense of the words, then genes are apparently all-powerful invisible beings, suspiciously similar to gods, and Darwinism is basically a religion that ascribes all purpose of life to these invisible beings. But if, on the other hand, this is not the case and DNA is just a dead molecule that can't make anybody do anything, then no Darwinian explanations make any sense. When Darwinists talk about ingenious adaptations, they're hinting at intelligence, which, in the same breath, they vehemently deny. If they don't mean what they say, what do they mean? Nobody seems to have an answer.

The result of this is pretty tragic. What we're seeing in evolutionary 'education' is 1. people being told there's no purpose in anything, 2. people being given explanations that are teeming with purpose, and 3. people being brainwashed into believing that both are true at the same time and there's no contradiction. This literally makes you stupid. If you can digest Darwinian evolution without strong feelings of cognitive dissonance, something is already broken in your head.

If even just surviving and reproducing is something organisms strive for, as we often hear, then there is a goal, a purpose, a meaning. But where could it come from when the same people who tell us this insist that genes have no mind and organisms themselves are mere slaves of their genes? And this of course just restates the contradiction because how can you be a slave of something that has no mind, no goal, and is completely accidental?

If we are serious about the idea that genes are really not conscious agents and have no mind or goals, and that all adaptation is completely accidental and without purpose, then there can be no struggle for life, no manipulation by genes, no selfishness, and no need for surviving or reproducing whatsoever. There cannot possibly be any reason for genes to replicate, much less a need for it. A gene itself does not benefit in any way from making a copy of itself, despite all evolutionary literature implying that it does. The fallacy that it does is so widespread that most people accept it without thinking. But it is utterly nonsensical. Replication cannot be 'good' or 'bad' for the gene because that would imply the gene can appreciate that. The gene has no such ability, even according to Darwinians. There is no more pressure for a gene to reproduce than there is pressure for a calculator to give you the right result when you type 6+6=. It's just what they're programmed to do, and they do not and by definition can not care about the result.

But if that's the case, then everything written in Richard Dawkins's books (and pretty much all Darwinian literature) is complete rubbish, not only because it's stupid on its own, but also because it's inconsistent with the Darwinian claim that genes have no minds or goals. The Darwinists have, with considerable pride and sense of accomplishment, taken consciousness and intelligence out of the equation, never quite realising that they have no means left to explain purpose. At the same time it is clear that they do feel that purpose is evident all around us. So for 160 years, they have held two contradictory beliefs and pretended like they've solved all the mysteries of the universe. Genes are selfish, except they aren't, because they don't have a mind. Genes manipulate us, except they can't, because they have no intelligence. Genes only care about replicating themselves, except they don't, because they can't have any goals. Genes struggle against other genes or alleles, except they don't, because they can't possibly have any sort of awareness of anything. And so on ad absurdum.

What does this tell us about all the people who went through school, accepted evolution by natural selection as fact, and either haven't noticed or don't care about the omnipresent contradictions? It doesn't speak highly of their ability to think. Of course, the truth is that most of them have not really thought about it much. This would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that they do strongly believe in all this nonsense and look down on those who don't. The conviction is highly disproportionate to their actual knowledge. It is ironic that the evolutionary literature is plagued by the same problems as the Bible - belief in invisible beings who manipulate us all, endless contradictions, and a ton of illogical nonsense - when the evolutionists are one of the chief groups that accuse Christians of not being able to solve exactly these problems.

The mere idea that survival and reproduction are the 'goals' of life is rendered impossible by Darwinism's own premises. There is nothing to have goals. In fact, if we are to take Darwinian materialist principles seriously, there is hardly anything that can be called 'life' at all. Darwinian life is dead. DNA isn't alive. Consciousness is allegedly only a side effect of some random mutations. There is no independent consciousness that could have any goals, and thus there cannot possibly be any goals, including survival. In fact, many, if not most, living organisms don't posses any consciousness of any kind, according to Darwinism, yet at the same time we're told they do have the goal of reproducing. What part of them has this goal, I ask? Darwinism is at its very core so contradictory that it's impressive anyone can swallow it without vomiting.

The whole evolutionary story only works through personification of genes, yet we are assured genes posses no awareness or mind whatsoever. It's like a religion of a dead god. The god is dead, but he still makes you behave according to his wishes, even though he has no wishes... but he does it anyway. Kind of accidentally. But you still have to obey. Even though he's dead. Because you don't have a choice. For some reason. Yep. That's right. You are but a servant of He Who Doesn't Exist. And you'd better reproduce soon if you don't want his nonexistent mind to be very angry with you. I know, this is a difficult cult to be in, but please try to keep up.


What are the implications of all this? Think about it. Living creatures, including ourselves and other people, are a major part of our lives. But what do we really know about them and where they came from? Since childhood, we're being told an elaborate lie, including plenty of information that's actually known to be false (see Jonathan Wells's book Zombie Science) even by Darwinists. Along with this lie comes a whole world-view. The view that there's only matter, everything is mechanical and random, all life is an accident, your mind is only an illusion, and there's no meaning in anything. You are taught to see the world that way. Does it matter? You decide. But let's look at where it should logically lead.

How to Be a Consistent Darwinist

If you believe that Darwinism is right and evolution by natural selection is true, here's what your life should look like. If it doesn't, then you don't really believe in evolution, or you're just doing everything wrong. If you believe in evolution, you should be consistent about it. You can't claim you believe in it but act as if you don't. So here's what Neo-Darwinism looks like when we don't drop it whenever it becomes inconvenient.

You are just a sack of meat and bones, made of unconscious atoms and molecules that over billions of years took the shape you currently have, completely accidentally. Your ancestor is a single-celled bacterium. You're just the result of a long series of mistakes in this bacterium's DNA replication process. Your mind is an illusion. Your perception is just the result of firing neurons, directed by your genes. Your genes are strings of molecules made of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and phosphorus with the sum IQ of zero. Yet they 'decide' everything you do. You don't actually make any choices. You have no free will because no such thing as will exists. It's an illusion. Everything you do is the only thing you can do at that point, determined by your genes and environment.

Your genes may have no mind, but that doesn't stop them from manipulating you all your life. (This contradiction doesn't bother you at all, because your genes have manipulated you into not thinking about it.) You are a slave of your DNA, and your purpose is to make more such DNA. You are truly a pitiful creature because everything you do is controlled by something that has no awareness of you (or of anything else).

Your wife/husband/child is also a sack of meat with no real mind, no intelligence, and no free will, and there's no meaning in their existence. Your relationship is determined by hormones and firing neurons, directed by 'selfish' genes. How your life will turn out is not up to you. You're not in the driver's seat. You're just a spectator, watching what your genes are making you do, and you probably mistakenly believe that you're actually making your own choices. You're not. Not if Darwinian evolution is true. You have no control over your life and existence whatsoever. There's hardly any 'you' in the first place.

The religious people you know aren't stupid. The criminals you know are not 'bad'. There are no such things. Everything is just a survival strategy, an adaptation to the environment, driven by genes. If a person is surviving and reproducing, they're adapting to their environment well. If they survive by murdering and reproduce by raping, it's all good because survival is all that matters and it's their genes that make them behave this way. They don't have a choice in that matter, just like you don't have any choice in anything. Morality doesn't exist because there's no place for such a concept in the context of evolution by natural selection. Raping and murdering aren't 'bad behaviour', except in your delusions. They are a survival strategy, and if they work, they're as close to 'good' as you can get. You can't turn away from these inevitable conclusions.

If you believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution by natural selection, you believe that life originated when atoms accidentally bumped into each other in a randomly specific (an oxymoron if there ever was one) order. You believe accidental replacements of Adenine with Cytosine or Thymine are responsible for a fish changing into a bear. You believe all creatures have a common ancestor, and you believe there's evidence for that, even though there isn't. Strangely, though, you believe whatever you believe not because you think about it but because your genes somehow make you believe that, even though nobody knows why (or how). It is unclear why evolution makes some people believe in God and turns others into atheists. But if you survive, it doesn't matter what you believe. Truth has no value, after all. If you survive through lying, you're clearly doing it right. If you die for the truth, you're an evolutionary failure.

Every day, you get up and go to work because that's what your genes want you to do. You kiss your wife/husband not because you love them (love doesn't exist - it's only a delusion), but because it's your genes' survival strategy, just like everything else you do. Survival is all that matters. If your neighbour has more children than you, he/she is a more successful specimen than you, evolution-wise. If you spend your time studying or helping others while your friend spends his time having sex and producing lots of offspring, then his genes are better than your crappy ones, because the quality of genes is determined by the number of offspring. He is the future of mankind. You are a mistake.

You will spend the rest of your meaningless life in whatever way your genes dictate. You've read this article because your genes made you do it. If you leave a comment disagreeing with the article, it's your genes making you do that. If writing your comment doesn't produce any offspring, it's 100% pointless. Anything else you do that doesn't produce offspring has no value whatsoever. If all else is meaningless, what's the point of surviving and reproducing? Hell if I know. Ask your genes.

If you believe in evolution by random mutations and natural selection, then this should unavoidably be your view of life, Universe, and everything. If it isn't, then you're a hypocrite, changing beliefs based on what's convenient at the moment.