The God In The Gaps -- Part II
------------------------------
Are Species Real?

The categorization of plants and animals developed by biologists differs
markedly from the categorization of elements developed by chemists and
physicists.  Each element on the periodic table, for example, has unique
physical properties and predictable behavior.  Each species in the modern
biological classification system is distinguished subjectively.  For example,
in the human species, there is much variation.  Some people have webbed toes,
different numbers of ribs, different numbers of bones in the wrist, differing
body hair, etc.   Are we all really one species?  Or is the label "species"
wrong?  Each human is quite variable in ways each helium molecule cannot be.

Up until now, I have used the word "species" in its traditional sense (the way
neo-darwinists have defined it for decades) throughout this essay.  The
traditional definition of "species" connotes organisms which can breed
together.  There are major problems with the definition of the word "species."
Pleomorphic organisms and all animals and plants which reproduce asexually
fall out of the species categorization -- this presents an enormous population
of living things on Earth and an enormous problem for neo-darwinists -- how do
we classify such organisms?  Not on the standard definition, obviously.
Another problem with this definition is that extinct populations of fossils do
not breed, so we do not know whether they could breed together and do in fact
represent one or more species.  This also, can never be tested, which is very
convenient for neo-darwinists.  And what of living populations which are
genetically identical but cannot breed together such as varieties of the fruit
fly?  And what of the offspring of a horse and a donkey -- a mule -- which is
fertile, even though most are not?  A bull can be crossed with a bison to
produce fertile offspring, that also violates the definition.

When the definition of "species" is thrown up to the wind, then statements
such as "all the species of Galapagos finch have evolved from common
ancestors" loses any value.  The different "species" of Galapagos finch have
been shown, on occasion, to breed together and produce fertile offspring.
Jonathan Weiner in Pulitzer-prize winning book The Beak Of The Finch
discovered different finch "species" do breed together, thus shattering the
old paradigm.

Claims of new species forming within the present day continue to be asserted
by neo-darwinists.  In every one of the examples they offer, however, what we
actually find is two types of pseudo-speciation situations.

The first type involves blurring the definition of what they have defined a
species as and replacing it with a definition so poorly defined that any sub-
species variation can be claimed as "speciation."  The Galapagos finches are
an excellent example of sub-species variations claimed to be different
species.  Another example is Rose and Bown (1984) research conducted on
primate fossils.  In the two primate "lines" they studied (Teilhardina
americana to Tetonoides tenuiculus and Tetonius homunculus to Pseudotetonius
ambiguus), they stated: "In both [primate] lines transitions occurred not only
continuously (rather than by abrupt appearance of new morphologies followed by
stasis), but also in mosaic fashion, with greater variation in certain
characters preceding a shift to another character state."  What they neglected
to mention in their study, was that their assumptions determine what they
found.  Their idea of what the word "species" meant (i.e. that Teilhardina
americana and Tetonoides tenuiculus were actually different species), actually
determined what they considered a "smooth transition."  So, given two
specimens (which could in reality be of the same primate species) with
different dentition (one with P2, one without; one with shrinkage of P3, C,
I2, one without these changes, etc.) the neo-darwinists categorized two
different species and arrayed other fossils (which could all actually be of
the same species) as transition-types undergoing smooth transitions from one
type of dentition to another. We could play this game with humans based on
brain case diameter and say that a pygmy is another species which smoothly
transitioned into the large-headed alpine racial type; then we could array
different human groups as transition types.

The second type involves chance mutations where the chromosomes suddenly
double (as in plants) or change in some other way, but these mutations have
never been shown to reproduce themselves into a new species.

Even defining a species by chromosomal similarities may prove impossible.
Recently Italian researchers have discovered a strain of mice with only 16
chromosomes instead of 20, but Silvia Garagna, a zoologist from the University
of Pavia involved in the research, has stated: "We have not found a new
species.  We have just found a new chromosomal race within the mouse species."
(See The San Diego Union Tribune, "Of Mice And Scientists...", Section E-1,
December 17, 1998.)

The assumptions of evolution make it true.  The assumption of existent species
for example presuppose speciation.  Can anyone define what a species is?  I
challenge anyone to actually define a species.  It is not the ability to
interbreed, because this has no meaning for countless organisms which
reproduce asexually.  Once the faultiness of any categorization of organisms
as a species is thrown out, the entire Darwinian system collapses.  On just
that one challenge for a definition of the word "species," the entire
Darwinian system collapses!

Faulty Mathematics

Evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins, have claimed that once you get past
the initial low probability of life's beginning, then all one need do is break
up the evolutionary process into small steps which are cumulative and
speciation events become more and more probable, because the evolution ball
has already begun rolling.  Of course, like most neo-darwinists, Dawkins has
no understanding of mathematics.  Imagine a feather being formed in 1000
mutational steps.  The mathematical improbability of step 1 leading to step 2,
followed by step 3, all the way up to mutation 1000 is as great as jumping
from step 1 to 1000 instantly.  In fact, the more steps involved, the greater
the mathematical improbability that each step will occur in the correct order.
Mathematically, the ball does not get rolling, but remains the same size for
each mutation.  Darwinists seem to be overly optimistic that cumulative
fundamental evolutionary steps somehow make additional steps mathematically
more likely -- they mathematically do not.

Shattering The Old Paradigm

Evolutionists claim primitive life arose in a primordial soup in the oceans of
the Earth billions of years ago and evolved from that stage.  Evolutionists
claim every living organism is a living ancestor of past living organisms of
the same or similar species.  We were taught in school that bacteria, mold,
and fungus cannot spontaneously arise in putrefying matter.  We all remember
the 19th century studies taught to us in school supposedly demonstrating
spontaneous generation is impossible.

However, raw-foodists, David and Annie Jubb have overturned this paradigm
after nearly 20 years of research focusing on blood analysis.  In their book,
Colloidal Biology & Secrets Of An Alkaline Body they describe: "Primitive life
spontaneously arises.  Nature is replete with examples of spontaneous
generation like simple-celled organisms like bacteria arising out of
putrefying blood and other proteinaceous material (Jubb, Annie & David,
Colloidal Biology & Secrets Of An Alkaline Body, Excellence Inc., New York,
1997, p.22)."

They further describe: "Furthermore, presently it is unconventional insight
into the origins of life that bacteria arise spontaneously from putrefying
organic matter and that cells arise in coral and sponge from aggregate of
intracellular symbionts in the water by means of aggregates fusing together
and organizing themselves. (Jubb, Annie & David, Colloidal Biology, Excellence
Inc., New York, 1997, p.25)."

This insight indicates basic pleomorphic organisms do not need ancestors, they
exist because: "Molds and yeast recycle life.  There is a natural development
cycle beginning at a very primitive stage identified as a colloid of light
that microscopically is practically invisible.  Visible with a special
microscope and under certain lighting conditions, colloids can be seen
aggregating into spores, then into bacteria and mold, hardening the cell wall,
and finally metamorphing to culminate in a fungal and yeast form.  Fungal and
yeast being the culminating assent as a final development form of this
primitive life cycle (Jubb, p.7)."

Also, within human blood, Annie & David have discovered that mitosis alone
cannot account for red blood cell proliferation and that red blood cells, like
the pleomorphic organisms described above, spontaneously form out of the
aggregate colloids brought into the blood stream at the intestinal villi.  In
fact, they have discovered blood is formed at the intestinal villi and not in
the bone marrow.

The findings of Annie & David Jubb have also been corroborated by past
experiments done by Dr. Wilhelm Reich.  In Reich's  book The Bion Experiments
On The Origin Of Life, he describes that life forms can assemble themselves
spontaneously from decaying organic material.  Dr. Robert Dew in 1987
published pictures of this process actually happening in the periodical Annals
For Orgonomic Science in September of 1987.

How do neo-darwinists explain these findings above?  The answer is...they do
not (or more truthfully, cannot).  They ignore them.

The Fallacy Of Radio-Isotope Dating

"The vertebrate sequence
A reflection in rock
Obscured by the ages,
A frozen time clock.

But how many years,
Into the din,
Dates each fossil
We're examining?"

More than anything else, neo-darwinists do not like having their dating system
challenged.  The present dating systems for organic material and rocks are so
ingrained into the present scientific consciousness in the fields of biology,
anthropology, paleontology, etc. that to even question their veracity screams
of sacrilege.  Yet, as strange as it may sound, radioactive dating -- the most
crucial leg of the neo-darwinian support  structure -- is perhaps the least
scientific and the most flawed of all darwinian postulates.

In the 1940s, American chemist Willard Libby developed the radiocarbon method
of dating organic materials.  His system was based on carbon 14 a radioactive
isotope of carbon 12.  Carbon 14, it was hypothesized, is created out of
carbon 12 in the upper atmosphere of the Earth through cosmic ray bombardment.
>From there it spreads throughout the atmosphere and passes into living
organisms within food, water, and even the air.  Carbon 14 begins to decay as
soon as it is created at a half-life rate of 5,700 years.  When a plant or
animal dies, it stops taking in carbon 14 from the land and atmosphere, so the
amount of carbon 14 in its body begins to decay, while the ordinary carbon 12
remains the same.  All other still-living organisms, argued Libby, still
retain the same proportion of carbon 14 to carbon 12 -- this proportion does
not change as long as the organism is still alive, thus it can be determined,
based on the proportion of carbon 14 to carbon 12, how long ago the organism
died.

Willard Libby made the crucial assumption that the total amount of carbon 14
in the atmosphere could not have varied in the time humans have been on Earth,
because the Earth was supposedly four billion years old.

Studies by Researchers Richard Lingenfelter, Hans Suess, V. Switzer, Melvin
Cook done independently have determined the proportions of carbon 14 to carbon
12 in the atmosphere is increasing (see Lingenfelter, R., "Production of C-14
by cosmic ray neutrons" Review of Geophysics, Feb. 1963, 1:51; Suess, H.,
"Secular variations in the Cosmic-ray produced carbon 14 in the atmosphere and
their interpretations" Journal of Geophysical Research, Dec. 1965, 70: 5947;
Switzer, V., "Radioactive dating and low level counting" Science, Aug. 1967,
157:726; Cook, M., "Do radiological clocks need repair?" Creation Research
Society Quarterly, Oct. 1968, 5:70).  Cook found, at present, carbon 14 is
increasing 38% faster than it is decaying.  The Earth's atmosphere is
accumulating carbon 14.  Cook found that Libby himself discovered carbon 14
was being created 25% faster than it was decaying -- there was no equilibrium.
Libby wrote it off as experimental error.  The only error which arises from
all this is the proposed dates of organic materials, which cannot be
accurately placed with unknown variations in proportions of carbon 14 to
carbon 12 levels during an organism's life-time.

Additionally, research scientist David Hudson, founder of The Science of the
Spirit Foundation and ORMES corporation has demonstrated that carbon 14 is
created by the break up of elements such as: rhodium, iridium, gold, silver,
osmium, and several others as they decay out of the high-spin state due to the
introduction of nitrous oxide within living organisms.  His findings provide
corroborative evidence that carbon 14 levels do not remain stable over time in
living organisms.  The break down of high-spin state elements and introduction
of carbon 14 will throw off the dating estimates in once organic material.

Cook also demonstrated uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating methods for
dating inorganic rocks are also severely flawed.  Cook's findings have been
supported by other reputable scientists in peer reviewed literature.
Funkhouser and Naughton demonstrated the flaws in uranium-lead methods by
dating volcanic material known to have been formed in a Hawaiian volcanic
eruption in 1801.  The dating system showed these new materials to be 3
billion years old (see Funkhouser, J., Naughton, J. Journal of Geophysical
Research, July 1968, 73: 4606).  In another related study, Professor McDougall
of Australian National University found, through potassium-argon dating, ages
up to 465,000 years for rocks known to be less than 1,000 years old (see
Nature, 20 March 1980, p. 230-232, 12 November 1981, p. 123-124).

Most people do not realize that the 4 billion year age estimate of the Earth
derives exclusively from methods of assessing radioactive uranium decay  (and
the decay of similar elements) -- no other dating system presents an age of
the Earth even in the ballpark of 4 billion years.

The uranium dating system works by tracking lead isotopes which are formed
from the decay of radioactive uranium 238.  Uranium 238 decays into lead 206,
which is distinct from common lead 204.  The half-life of uranium 238 is 4.5
billion years; thus, a sample of uranium 238 should become half lead 206 in
4.5 billion years.  From this relation rocks are dated. The amount of uranium
238 and lead 206 in the sample are compared.  The problem with this dating
system is that lead 206 can be formed by other processes!  While uranium 238
is decaying, it is also releasing neutrons which bombard surrounding particles
including common lead 204.  By absorbing neutrons, common lead 204 can be
converted into lead 206!

Neo-darwinist dating champion Brent Dalrymple has claimed the level of neutron
release by decaying uranium 238 is insignificant, but his statement is not
supported because the two largest uranium deposits in the world contain
significant amounts of lead 208 but almost no thorium 232 (lead 208 is a
product of thorium 232 decay).  This means lead 208 is not a product of
thorium 232 decay, but is an isotope created from lead 204 and lead 206 by the
release of neutrons from another source -- radioactive uranium 238.

Also uranium 238 and other isotopes are not metals in their natural form, but
appear as water-soluble uranium oxide which can wash from one place to
another, thereby enriching some sites and depleting others throwing off the
dating accuracy yet again.

Another problem with uranium dating is the issue of "the missing helium."
Helium 4 is a also a product of uranium 238 decay.  Darwinian scientists
believe that almost the entire amount of helium 4 presently in the atmosphere
is a result of radioactive decay.  So, if the Earth was 4 billion years old,
it has been estimated there should be 10 trillion tons of helium 4 in the
atmosphere.  There are only 3.5 billion tons of helium 4 in the atmosphere at
present -- the mechanism and rate for helium 4 loss into outer space, even as
calculated by Brent Dalrymple, cannot account for the missing helium 4 (his
estimates are an order of magnitude off target!).

The problem with radioactive dating is there is no independent means (outside
of the radioactivity paradigm) of verifying the ages of samples.  Most rock
samples, when dated, present a range of dates which appear as a bell curve --
along the curve some ages are too old and some are too young and ages are
chosen subjectively often because they "feel right" within the context.
Geologists have attempted to provide corroborating evidence to buttress their
dating methods by linking several isotope-decay systems together in an
Isochron graph.  But this does not solve the problem, because differential
rates of the accumulation of the offspring isotopes (i.e. lead 206) due to
decay (along with systemic issues such as unaccounted for neutron accumulation
and factors affecting the whole system such as uranium oxide washing from one
place to another), will still lead to inaccuracies, the dating bell curve for
one radioactive element decay method will diverge from the dating bell curve
for another and have to be estimated again by an average, which could be
meaningless due to the systemic problems with each radioactive system.
Additionally, peer pressures have forced many geologists to throw out
Isochron-dated material completely because they were taken from "unsuitable"
rock samples which produced dates outside the acceptable boundaries.  Consider
the McDougall study mentioned above (cited in Nature, also see and compare
Nature, 18 April 1970, 20 September 1974, 4 December 1975, 28 October 1976),
where the "scatter" of dates conducted by different groups of researchers
ranged from 0.52 million to 17.5 million years ago for a sample of KBS Tuff
rock material used to date the age of the Lake Turkana Man fossils.  The dates
for rock samples taken from the KBS Tuff were all over the place.  The date of
2.6 million years arrived at for the KBS Tuff sample was eventually chosen, to
end the whole debate, because it was "reasonable."

No other scientific discipline would ever allow such flawed procedures.
Geologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists just seem to get a free pass.

Radioactive dating is fatally flawed, but still clung to by scientists in the
field because of the accuracy of atomic clocks, and the precise decay timing
of radioactive materials.  However, these benefits cannot be applied to a
system that is not understood within the unrestricted world of physics in
Nature.  When we pull out the dating system and really understand the entire
methodology for dating the Earth, the fossils, even the universe itself is
totally flawed, then we may, perhaps for the first time, appreciate the
incredible mystery of Life.  The Earth could have been here for trillions of
years, millions of years, or a few thousand years -- the truth is...nobody
knows.

Neo-darwinism: Is It Reasonable?

When neo-darwinists are challenged for obvious errors in neo-darwinian logic,
at some point or another they end up retreating into the: "it's the best
description of life out there, it may not be totally accurate, but it's the
best we've got."  Is darwinism the best theory of life we have got?  Hardly.
Remember, the flat Earth theory was the "best" theory of geography out there
for quite some time.  Every scientist of the time could "prove" to you the
Earth was flat and that the sun went around the Earth as well -- yet these
theories were totally inaccurate and deeply flawed.

There have been many alternatives to neo-darwinism aside from creationism,
which have been proposed.  The leading contender is probably a form of
Lamark's hypothesis -- that living organisms can experience genetic change
during a lifetime due to environmental factors which can be passed along to
offspring.  Other alternatives include: evolution by quantum change (sudden
transformation), multiple creations, formative causation through morphogenic
field templates (by Rupert Sheldrake), life origins from outer space (proposed
in different forms by Hoyle, Crick, and Zacharias Sitchen), rationalism (by
Lloyd Pye), etc.  Neo-darwinism is NOT the only reasonable theory available.

Conclusion

Since I have been demonstrating the fallacies of neo-darwinism, many
omnivorists have stopped using neo-darwinism to support their precarious
theories.  They now make statements like, "Who cares about evolution anyway"
-- quite a change from the neo-darwinian arrogance of just a short while ago.

Evolutionists and omnivorists express a shallow sophistication which prides
itself on its pessimism and cynicism revealing an inward uncertainty.  They
privately accept and admit that they hold serious reservations about their
theories.  However, they have become reluctant to discuss these reservations
in open forums such as the Internet.  They fear they will unwittingly credit
the creationists or help their critics along.  In many cases, they feel it is
better to be careful, pretend nothing is wrong, and let the mounting gaps
slide in the interest of what they perceive is for the benefit of science.

As I have repeatedly demonstrated, radiometric dating is false, smooth
transitions are riddled with irreconcilable gaps, natural selection cannot
form a new species, biological transformation is not blind, darwin's finches
can interbreed, there are no missing links.

It is funny how dissenting from darwinism -- the dominant scientific idea of
this century -- at one time seemed foolhardy, whereas, now, the fatal flaws of
darwinism are becoming well-accepted and publicized.  Along with darwinism
collapses the corollary ideas of geology, biology, genetics, radioactive-
isotope dating, anthropology, and paleontology as they are understood now.

Omnivorism, of course, also collapses with evolution; even omnivorists
intuitively understand humans are biologically a plant-eating species by
origin, but they use the wobbly leg of evolution to justify their addictions
through "adaptation."  No "macroevolutionary" change has occurred to the human
digestive organs from the teeth to the anus (the teeth have not sharpened, the
bowels have not de-sulcified and shortened, the liver has not enlarged), even
in spite of humanity's recent history of chaotic dietary patterns.

"Our thought is simply that as man now is, man has always been."  -- Dr.
Herbert Shelton

Humanity's past and future is written in the body's structure now.  Are we
supposed to understand the theory of evolution to know how to eat?  Such a
proposition is absurd on its face.  Eating naturally is an intuitive knowledge
-- a natural propensity.  Eating raw plant food is obvious.  The fact that
this even needs to be proven is proof positive of the ethical and moral
perversity which has gripped the world.

I will say it again and again until as many eyes and ears open as possible:
Life is more than just chemistry and statistics.  The history of the Earth is
profoundly and deeply mysterious and not one in a million of its secrets has
yet been revealed.

The traces of biological history present a vast and puzzling picture.  For
neo-darwinists, the God in the gaps, is really the devil in the details.

"Without a belief
In wrong or right.
Life is no more
Than matter and sight.

Some believe in nothing,
'There are no truths eternal.'
They one day find themselves --
Infernally mortal.

The fear of death devours,
The material mind cowers.
The slates of truth withheld,
Another tower felled."

Nature's First Law
PO Box 900202
San Diego, CA 92190 USA
http://www.rawfood.com
The World's Premier Source Of Raw-Food Diet Books, Booklets, Videos, & Audio
Tapes