Posts Tagged ‘evolution’

The other night as we gathered around the Christmas tree, I was talking with Dad about the communist version of truth. It doesn’t matter what it is I say or what facts I cite, because facts don’t matter to the evolutionary darwinists.

This was true under the Soviets, which was why Lysenko got away with his version of biology for 30 years, and why some dissenting scientists to Stalin’s ‘creative biology’ died in concentration camps.

So, it occurs to me that the fellow from Millard Fillmore’s bathtub isn’t really interested in ‘facts’. The truth doesn’t matter to him either, because he has his own definition of the ‘truth’, which furthers his agenda.

The classical concept of ‘truth’ as conceptualized by Aristotle, for example, were summarily rejected by Karl Marx in his theses on Feuerrbach.

Communism doesn’t end with economic and political reform. By definition, it further demands the abolition of both Religion and the Absolute Morality founded upon Religion. The irony is that Communism supposedly attempts to enhance civility within society, but removes all notions of Absolute Morality, the very cornerstone of civility. Furthermore, after Communism is instituted by the people, the system becomes Totalitarian, resulting in greater oppression of the people it was designed to “serve.” This fact is well documented throughout the history of Communist nations.

The practical results of Communism have been horror and atrocity for those under communist rule. So much so, advocates of Marxism have made every attempt to point out where communist leaders have strayed from the fundamental teachings of Karl Marx, in an attempt to absolve Communism. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Marxist influence brought about many of these horrors. The irony is, Marxism renounces religion, not because of religious doctrine, but because of the actions of “religious” men. No one could accuse a religion such as Christianity of evil doctrine. However, it seems that men are intrinsically evil and need only an opportunity to express this inherent reality. One must look at the overall outcome of a philosophical doctrine on society, both good and bad, not specific instances of abuse. Christianity, for example, has been used by wicked men to do much evil, but its underlying doctrine has been the cause of much good in the world. Communism, on the other hand, has brought only atrocity into the world. Communism has not brought relief to the majority as promised, nor has it ended oppression as purposed. Communism has only served to remove Morality from the masses — a dangerous and costly experiment.

Read Full Post »

There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is true. Nobody has ever observed a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything like that; nor have they been able to create any of that in a laboratory. No one ever observed evolution in action, no one knows how it works, or even how it might work, even if it were true. Nobody has ever seen it happen, despite thousands of experiments that have tried to produce it, and nobody has come up with a workable explanation to explain it.

It has been falsified at least as far as today’s world goes. This does not prove it happened in the past, but evolutionists should at least recognize that evolution is not science, because it is not observable. Evolution must be accepted on faith.

There is no evidence that evolution took place in the past. As we’ve seen through Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings, the tree of life, vestigial organs, etc., there is no evidence from biology, the fossil record, taxonomy or genetics that evolution is true or ever has been. Nobody has ever recorded evolution in any kind of creature into a more complex kind of creature, so the blind faith that requires someone to believe that an organism as complex as the human body could jump out of the primordial soup by accident must be tremendous.

All known vertical changes go in the wrong direction. An average of at least one species has become extinct every day since records have been kept, but no new species have evolved. Stars explode, comets and meteorites disintegrate, the biosphere deteriorates, and everything dies, so far as historical observations go, but nothing is evolving into greater complexity.

Prehistoric changes in the sedimentary rocks of the earth’s crust, where billions of fossils of former living creatures were preserved we can clearly observe, show extinction, not evolution. Numerous kinds of extinct animals are found, like dinosaurs, for example, but never in all of these billions of fossils, is there a transitional form. No fossil has ever been found with half scales and half feathers, half legs and half wings or a half-developed heart, half-developed eyes, or any other such indicator.

If evolution is true, there would be millions of transitional types among these multiplied billions of fossils – in fact, EVERYTHING should show transitional features. If one were to rely strictly upon observed evidence, past evolution is false.

Evolution is imaginary and not even part of the real world, which leaves creation as the necessary explanation.

And there is a lot more evidence in genetics, biology, the fossil record, taxonomy and so on, for creation.

This is confirmed in quantity by the law of decay, the law of conservation in quality, and the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

The first law says, in all real processes, the total quantity of matter and/or energy stays constant, even though it changes in form. A parallel principle in biology notes that ‘like begets like’. Dogs are dogs, donkeys are donkeys, wolves are wolves, although they can appear in many varieties. The Second law notes that the quality of any system-the usefulness, its complexity, its information value-tends to decrease. In living organism, true vertical changes go down-not up. Mutations cause deterioration and a loss in genetic code, individuals die, species become extinct. In fact, everyhting in the universe is headed downward toward cosmic death.

The First Law states in effect that nothing is being created or evolving. The Second law notes that there is, instead, a universal tendency for everything to disintegrate down, and finally to “die”. The whole universe is growing old, wearing out, headed toward stillness and death. This universal “increase in entropy” leads directly to the conclusion that there must have been a creation of things in the past; otherwise everything would now be dead, since they’re universally dying right now.

It is logical, therefore, to believe in a primal creation by past supernatural processes because we cannot deduce anything about it except that it happened. The process of creation, the duration, the order of events, -are hidden by virtue of the fact that our present world processes do not create, they only conserve in quantity and deteriorate in quality.

Read Full Post »

I really don’t have time to get into the rest of this–but I’ll take this one idiotic comment from the many hysterical comments from the man in the bathtub–since he’s completely off his rocker in terms of self control at this point. He quotes me:

The peppered moth doesn’t even sit on tree trunks; they were placed there for a photo op.

Lysenko from Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub says: Well, that’s wrong. Think about this hard: A tree has bark and leaves. Do the moths rest on leaves? Almost never. What’s left?

Ok, Lysenko, here are the facts:

The fairytale of England’s famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) goes like this.

The moth comes in light and dark (melanic) forms. The assumption was that pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-coloured covering lichen (plus darkening it with soot).

The lighter moths, which were well-camouflaged against the light background, now ‘stood out,’ and so the birds ate them at a higher ratio to the dark-colored moths, so the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.

H.B. Kettlewell, who performed these classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ‘He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.’

This is a far-fetched and exaggerated claim, LOL…(but so was Carson’s claim that the American Robin was on the verge of extinction! Or that swallows were decreasing!) The textbook story of the peppered moths achieves little more than pointing out gene frequency shifting back and forth, within one species. This shifting doesn’t add the sort of complex design information needed for amoeba-to-man evolution.

The other problem with it is that peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day. Kettlewell attracted the moths into traps either with light, or with female pheromones—in each case, they only flew at night. Now think about that. When do you see any moths flying? You see them mostly at night, attracted to the light of streetlights or streetlamps. They fly to the interior light when you open your car door at night. They are nocturnal, and active mostly at night. The question is, where are all these moths (Biston betularia) during the daytime?

Cyril Clarke, a British biologist who investigated the peppered moth, wrote:

‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. … In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’

The moths filmed being eaten by birds were laboratory-bred, which Kettlewell placed on the tree trunks; they were so languid, in fact, that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).

What about the infamous still photos of the moths on the tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’

Kettlewell assumed (1) that the main defect of his release method was an unnaturally high density of moths, affecting merely the tempo of predation; and (2) that he could disregard the observation that many moths would have preferred to take up positions higher in the trees. Before the 1980’s most investigators shared Kettlewell’s second assumption, and many of them found it convenient to conduct predation experiments using dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks (e.g., Clarke and Sheppard 1966, Bishop 1972, Lees and Creed 1975, Bishop and Cook 1975, Steward 1977b, Murray et al. 1980). (Wells)

There is a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and respective moth populations. When one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light onesthe opposite of textbook predictions.

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.

He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.

When biologists looked beyond Birmingham and Dorset, where Kettlewell had conducted his experiments, they found discrepancies between Kettlewell’s theory and the actual geographical distribution of melanic moths. For example, if melanic moths in polluted woodlands enjoyed as much of a selective advantage as Kettlewell’s experiments seemed to indicate, then they should have completely replaced typicals in heavily polluted areas such as Manchester (Bishop and Cook 1980, Mani 1990). This never happened, however, indicating that factors other than selective predation must be affecting melanic frequencies. Some investigators attributed the discrepancy to heterozygote advantage (Clarke and Sheppard 1966, Lees and Creed 1975), but it has since been established that there is no evidence for this (Creed et al. 1980, Lees 1981, Mani 1982, Cook et al. 1986). (Wells)

Regrettably, students have been indoctrinated by supposed ‘proof’ of evolution which is fraudulent, just as the 30-year period of Lysenko’s biologists suggests. But fervently feverishly and blindly clinging to the Lysenkoist ideology seems to me to be an example of ‘you can’t parody scientific illiteracy’…LOL


  1. Kettlewell, H. (1959), ‘Darwin’s missing evidence’ in Evolution and the fossil record, readings from Scientific American, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, p. 23, 1978.
  2. Clarke, C.A. & G.S. Mani & G. Wynne, Evolution in reverse: clean air and the peppered moth, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189–199, 1985; quote on p. 197.
  3. Calgary Herald, p. D3, 21 March 1999.
  4. Lees,D.R. & Creed, E.R. Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67–83, 1975.
  5. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36.
  6. The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 January 1999.
  7. Lees, D.R. & Creed, E.R. ref. 4.
  8. Unfettered by evolutionary fantasies, researchers can now look for the real causes of these population shifts. Could the dark moth variation actually have a function, like absorbing more warmth? Could it reflect conditions in the caterpillar stage? In a different nocturnal moth species, Sargent has found that the plants eaten by the larvae may induce or repress the expression of such ‘melanism’ in adult moths (see Sargent T.R. et al. in M.K. Hecht et al, Evolutionary Biology 30:299–322, Plenum Press, New York, 1998).
  9. Weiland, C. (December, 2002) Goodbye, peppered moths-A classic evolutionary story comes unstuck; first published Creation 21(3):56; June 1999
  10. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D (1999) Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths-This classical story of evolution by natural selection needs revising. Department of Molecular Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
  11. Berry RJ. 1990. Industrial melanism and peppered moths (Biston betularia (L.). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 39: 301-322.
  12. Bishop JA. 1972. An experimental study of the cline of industrial melanism in Biston betularia (L.) (Lepidoptera) between urban Liverpool and rural North Wales. Journal of Animal Ecology 41: 209-243.
  13. Bishop JA, Cook LM. 1975. Moths, melanism and clean air. Scientific American 232(1): 90-99.
  14. Bishop JA, Cook LM. 1980. Industrial melanism and the urban environment. Advances in Ecological Research 11: 373-404.
  15. Brakefield PM. 1985. Polymorphic Muellerian mimicry and interactions with thermal melanism in ladybirds and a soldier beetle: a hypothesis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26: 243-267.
  16. Brakefield PM. 1990. A decline of melanism in the peppered moth Biston betularia in The Netherlands. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 39: 327-334.
  17. Clarke CA, Sheppard PM. 1966. A local survey of the distribution of industrial melanic forms in the moth Biston betularia and estimates of the selective values of these in an industrial environment. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 165: 424-439.
  18. Clarke CA, Mani GS, Wynne G. 1985. Evolution in reverse: clean air and the peppered moth. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26: 189- 199.
  19. Cook LM, Mani GS, Varley ME. 1986. Postindustrial melanism in the peppered moth. Science 231: 611-613.
  20. Creed ER. 1966. Geographic variation in the two-spot ladybird in England and Wales. Heredity 21: 57-72.
  21. Creed ER, Lees DR, Bulmer MG. 1980. Pre-adult viability differences of melanic Biston betularia (L.) (Lepidoptera). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 13: 251-262.
  22. Ford EB. 1937. Problems of heredity in the Lepidoptera. Biological Reviews 12: 461-503.
  23. Ford EB. 1975. Ecological Genetics. 4th ed. London: Chapman and Hall.
  24. Grant BS, Howlett RJ. 1988. Background selection by the peppered moth (Biston betularia Linn.): individual differences. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 33: 217-232.
  25. Grant BS, Owen DF, Clarke CA. 1995. Decline of melanic moths. Nature 373: 565.
  26. Grant BS, Owen DF, Clarke CA. 1996. Parallel rise and fall of melanic peppered moths in America and Britain. Journal of Heredity 87: 351- 357.
  27. Grant BS, Cook AD, Clarke CA, Owen DF. 1998. Geographic and temporal variation in the incidence of melanism in peppered moth populations in America and Britain. Journal of Heredity 89: 465-471.
  28. Harrison JWH. 1920. Genetical studies in the moths of the geometrid genus Oporabia (Oporinia) with a special consideration of melanism in the Lepidoptera. Journal of Genetics 9: 195-280.
  29. Howlett RJ, Majerus MEN. 1987. The understanding of industrial melanism in the peppered moth (Biston betularia) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 30: 31-44.
  30. Jones JS. 1982. More to melanism than meets the eye. Nature 300: 109-110.
  31. Kettlewell HBD. 1955. Selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Heredity 9: 323-342.
  32. Kettlewell HBD. 1956. Further selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Heredity 10: 287-301.
  33. Kettlewell HBD. 1973. The Evolution of Melanism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  34. Lees DR. 1981. Industrial melanism: genetic adaptation of animals to air pollution. Pages 129-176 in Bishop JA, Cook LM, eds. Genetic Consequences of Man-made Change. London: Academic Press.
  35. Lees DR, Creed ER. 1975. Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation. Journal of Animal Ecology 44: 67-83.
  36. Lees DR, Creed ER, Duckett LG. 1973. Atmospheric pollution and industrial melanism. Heredity 30: 227-232.
  37. Liebert TG, Brakefield PM. 1987. Behavioural studies on the peppered moth Biston betularia and a discussion of the role of pollution and lichens in industrial melanism. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 31: 129- 150.
  38. Majerus MEN. 1998. Melanism: Evolution in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  39. Mani GS. 1982. A theoretical analysis of the morph frequency variation in the peppered moth over England and Wales. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 17: 259-267.
  40. Mani GS. 1990. Theoretical models of melanism in Biston betularia — a review. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 39: 355-371.
  41. Manley TR. 1981. Frequencies of the melanic morph of Biston cognataria (Geometridae) in a low-pollution area of Pennsylvania from 1971 to 1978. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 35: 257-265.
  42. Mikkola K. 1984. On the selective forces acting in the industrial melanism of Biston and Oligia moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae and Noctuidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 21: 409-421.
  43. Murray ND, Bishop JA, MacNair MR. 1980. Melanism and predation by birds in the moths Biston betularia and Phigalia pilosauria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 210: 277-283.
  44. Owen DF. 1962. The evolution of melanism in six species of North American geometrid moths. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 55: 695-703.
  45. Ridley M. 1996. Evolution. 2nd ed. Cambridge (MA): Blackwell Science.
  46. Sargent TD. 1974. Melanism in moths of central Massachusetts (Noctuidae, Geometridae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 28: 145-152.
  47. Sargent TD, Millar CD, Lambert DM. 1998. The “classical” explanation of industrial melanism: assessing the evidence. Evolutionary Biology 30: 299-322.
  48. Sheppard PM. 1975. Natural Selection and Heredity. 4th ed. London: Hutchinson University Library.
  49. Steward RC. 1977a. Industrial and non-industrial melanism in the peppered moth, Biston betularia (L.). Ecological Entomology 2: 231-243.
  50. Steward RC. 1977b. Melanism and selective predation in three species of moths. Journal of Animal Ecology 46: 483-496.
  51. Treat AE. 1979. Biston cognataria (Geometridae): frequency of melanic males in Tyringham, Massachusetts, 1958-1977. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 33: 148-149.
  52. Tutt JW. 1896. British Moths. London: George Routledge.
  53. West DA. 1977. Melanism in Biston (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) in the rural central Appalachians. Heredity 39: 75-81.
  54. Wright S. 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Volume 4: Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Read Full Post »