Darwinism is collapsing

More and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that Darwinism is beginning to rot on the vine. Darwinsim is self-destructing.

Facts that will never be explained by Darwinism:

Nature evolves, from the big bang to human mind. If there is a universal evolution law, it should by definition apply to all phenomena of nature, from the past to the future and from the unconscious to the conscious. Can Darwinism qualify to be such a law? Below is a list of facts that cannot be properly explained by Darwinism and will never be. You are welcome to add to the list. Most of these facts are explained by Darwinism by invoking infinite amount of time and accidents, which is practically equivalent to explaining nothing. Given the smooth flow and astonishing coherence of the universe, there could only be one single universal law of evolution. If an evolution hypothesis can be shown to be only applicable in some situations but not all, one can be pretty certain that the hypothesis is at best partially correct. So, here is one of best arguments to refute Darwinism as the ultimate or the only best scientific law of nature that Science can offer. Even Darwinists will admit that Darwinism does not apply to human culture or evolution of future life on Earth dominated by the human mind. Social Darwinism is notoriously appalling and has long been dumped into the trashcan where it rightly belongs as proven by history. Survival of the fittest cannot explain the phenomenon of a creative and immortal human being such as a Van Gogh or a Mendel, who were outcasts in their lifetime and lived their lives not trying to fit but to be creative or unique or different. The most fundamental phenomenon of nature and human life is creation. To create is by definition to be unique and to be unique is not to fit. All sane persons strive to be a unity of to fit (the social rules) and to be unique (to be known as somebody but not just a nobody or a fitting clone of somebody). That Darwinism does not apply in human mind evolution or the future evolution of life dominated by humans is sufficient evidence of itself to refute Darwinism as the best scientific law of evolution. This is plain clear to most laymen with a sound common sense as evidenced by their rejection of Darwinism. To them, Darwinism just does not feel right and lacks the beauty and simplicity of truth. The idea of infinite amount of time and accidents will create anything is simply inconsistent with common sense and is an ugly and awkward idea that defies reason and beauty. The challenge now is to discover the single most comprehensive "law" that will not only explain everything that can be explained by Darwinism but will also explain things as listed below that cannot be explained by Darwinism.

1. The fine-tuning of the physical constants. The cosmos is uniquely and ideally fit for life. If the unique is one out of a large number of less unique possibilities, how could chance consistently and repeatedly select the unique rather than one of the non-unique?

2. The stability of a pattern, like the day and night cycle or the body plan of animals. If such pattern is created by random chance, how does it subsequently avoid the disruptive power of random chance. As far as human can discern, random chance is largely a disruptive force rather than a creative force and a stabilizing force.

3. The Cambrian explosion. Death of species but abundance of phyla.

4. Body plans appears first. Evolution at the species or individual level cannot cross the phylum or higher taxonomic levels.

5. About 70 body plans in a short time period. How can the same environment selects vastly different forms and creates such a high number of novelties?

6. Top-down direction of change in phyla. The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. DARWIN'S TREE IS UPSIDE DOWN!!

7. The rise and fall of lineages.

8. The finality of a pattern. (Where's today's evolution?)

9. The era of phyla is followed by the era of species that is followed by the era of minds. The creation of phyla was long finished. The creation of species was largely finished since the creation of the human mind. The creation phenomenon of nature is now largely confined to the domain of the human mind. An evolution law that claims to explain past creation phenomena at the level of phyla and species but cannot explain today's creation phenomena at the mind level simply must be false.

10. The prevalence and persistence of the 5 finger pattern in major terrestrial vertebrates.

11. The evolution of human mind/culture and the future evolution on Earth dominated by the human mind.

12. The prevalence and persistence of the 5 petal design in flowers most relevant to humans. The fascination of human culture with the number 5 and the 5-pointed star.

13. The prevalence and persistence of the golden ratio and the Fibonacci numbers in nature.

14. The molecular clock phenomenon that is uncoupled from mutation rate.

15. The diversity pattern of genes such as ND6 (NADH dehydrogenase subunit 6) that shows no clock pattern in some lineages but shows clock pattern in some other lineages.

16. The slower substitution rate of mitochondrial genes in the fish lineage relative to the tetrapod lineage.

17. Major evolution jumps occur only once and never repeat. Fish evolved into amphibians only once in history. A random process predicts that today's fish should have the possibility of evolving into an amphibian, and that some kinds of major evolution jump should be going on today for as least some organisms. But the fact is that they are not occurring today in any organisms except in the domain of human mind.

18. The coexistence of continuity and discontinuity. Evolution jump or revolutionary advance such as a Van Gogh or Mendel or Einstein is a phenomenon of discontinuity. While Darwinism may qualify as a law of continuity, a law for the phenomenon of discontinuity or creative jump is presently lacking.

19. Sex as the dominant way of reproduction. Any honest biochemist will tell you that sexual reproduction is ANTI-evolutoinary. As well, "natural selection" is anti-evolutionary.

20. Why diversity of organisms rather than a uniformity of a single most successful or adapted life form such as bacteria? Why variation rather than uniformity? The number of varieties of life forms vastly outnumbers that of environment.

21. The phenomenon of specified and irreducible complexity.

22. The un-predictability and randomness of basic building blocks of the micro-world giving rise to a macro-world following the rule of cause and effect.

23. Why beauty/goodness dominates ugliness/evil rather than the reverse in the long run?

24. The purpose of existence and life. The existence of justice and morality. What is life for?

25. Simultaneous creation of genetically diverged life forms. There are no discernible phylogenetic or antecedent relationships among metazoan phyla or between bacteria, archea, and eukaryotes.

26. Why so many stars, so many galaxies?

27. Why nature follows mathematical patterns?

28. The absence of ill-adapted or transitional life forms in fossil records.

29. How can there be a sharp transition from non-intelligent evolution in the past to the intelligent evolution of today and future? How can the common sense of human mind (e.g., intelligence must be behind design and complexity) so perfectly suited to comprehending nature must be violated in order to comprehend the past evolution as is required by Darwinism?

30. Mathematics is the foundation of physics, in turn chemistry, and in turn biology, and all of science. Mathematics is the most reliable form of human knowledge. Mathematics is in turn based on numbers. Numbers are in turn based on prime numbers. What are then the prime numbers based on? The prime numbers are presently defined by mathematical calculations, which is a circular definition or a tautology. A true definition of prime numbers must be based on knowledge that must be more fundamental than mathematical calculations and must be independent of number concept. Until we uncover that knowledge or the true definition of primes, we will not have a solid foundation for the whole enterprise of Science or comprehending nature. We are far away from a scientific description of nature since we have not understood or established the foundation. The ultimate understanding of nature could be reduced to the most simple and yet most mysterious problem of finding a non-circular definition of primes. The scientific search for the ultimate will inevitably rely on mathematics and may rest on the problem of primes. It is no coincidental that the holy grail of mathematics is a problem (the Riemann conjecture) about the primes. It is unfortunate, however, that the most fundamental problem about primes, i.e., its definition, has been overlooked for more than 2000 years.


Finally -- Can any aspect of Darwinism survive the scrutiny of the experimental laboratory or the testimony of the fossil record? This is the biggest laugher of all time!



Tweet