Specialist Subject: the Trivial!

It’s easy to conclude that Darwinists only solve problems which are trivial!  How many times has a comment praising some aspect of religion, or challenging some point of evolution been casually swatted away with:

“God of the gaps. Solved long ago. Trivial.

“Selection.  Simple. Look it up.”

“Darwin. Mutation. Go read a book. Easily proven.

“Vestigial. Proven. It’s not rocket science.

Since this branch of thought only deals with the most trivial problems, here’s one which won’t be of interest – pointed out by Alfred Schultz, in 1912:

“In medicine the evolutionary hypothesis is practically applied; it has led to the theory of rudimentary organs.  These are organs, the Darwinists say, which in the supposed animal existence were of use to our ancestors, but are now discarded: they testify to some previous stage in our development.

Prof Weidersheim in his Darwinistic intoxication has found 107 rudimentary organs in man.  Mr Houston Chamberlain says it is time to write a book on the Human Body as Nature’s Junkshop for Defunct Organs, and wonders whether the human brain is not the one hundred and eighth.  In medicine the Darwinian disease led to deplorable consequences.  As these organs were declared useless, they were cut out for trivial reasons.


No junk in the ENCODE trunk: co-association between transcription factors (Nature, 6 Sep 2012)

The thyroid gland is a rudimentary organ;  “cut it out,” and it was cut out.  Many victims died from the effects of the operation, all others developed myxedema.  This rudimentary (!) organ was found to have an important function.

The two rudimentary organs still abused are the tonsils and the appendix.  The tonsils have probably a protective function, the active phagiocytosis going on in the most exposed part of the alimentary tract, they frequently become inflamed; they do not become inflamed because they are rudimentary.

Many scalpel wielders consider themselves justified in exsecting every appendix that comes their way.  We do not yet know the purpose of the appendix, but it is certain that it is not placed in the body to give surgeons the opportunity to show their skill.

..Alfred Schultz, The End of Darwinism (circa 1912)

75 years later, tonsils were realised to be part of the lymph system and a vital first line of defence.  My father, a hematologist and former surgeon, mused in the early 90’s that Toronto General was not so quick to excise tonsils as before, because patients who lost them seemed later prone to “some very nasty infections”.  In October 1999, regarding the appendix, Scientific American found:

The appendix is now thought to be involved in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue accumulates in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60.

During the early years the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of lymphocytes and production of immunoglobulin A antibodies. Researchers have shown the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help direct lymphocytes to other locations in the body.

In this context, the appendix’s function appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, it helps suppress potentially destructive humoral antibody responses while promoting local immunity.

“The appendix takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in immune response and control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens. The connection between these local immune reactions and inflammatory bowel diseases, as well as autoimmune reactions in which the individual’s own tissues are attacked by the immune system, is under investigation.

..Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology, Oklahoma University

Of course, if “vestigial organs” are taken to mean those which decreased in function during evolution, then much, if not all, of the human body counts as removable – including ears, jaw muscles, chin, buttocks, eyebrows, toes and fingernails.


At least something turned out to be 95% junk!

In 2007, nearly a hundred years after Schultz saw the havoc wreaked by Darwinism, scientists revealed the appendix as a farm for necessary bacteria, a storehouse which was a reboot facility for the gut if at any time it is cleared of bacteria in some crisis of elimination or poisoining. Its inflamation may even be a consequence of the disruptive effects of disinfectants and chemicals on our bacteria.

But if you think Darwinism’s damage is gone and done with, remember research takes a long time to spread – some textbooks still have Haeckel’s 100 year old fraudulent gill slits in the foetus.  So, spare a thought for the patient who read Scientific American just a few days too late to save his reboot facility and antibody generator from the effects of Charles Darwin:

I am 24 and just had my appendix taken out a week ago because my omentum had wrapped itself around the appendix and was causing severe discomfort. My appendix was fine but the surgeon told me that it had no function so he took it out along with a small portion of my omentum to prevent appendicitis in the future.

I wish that I would have seen this article before going to the emergency room… My appendix was definitely “routinely removed and discarded” even though it was healthy.

How much more damage can Darwinism do?  In 1989, perhaps encouraged by Crick’s blithe assumption that most DNA is junk, the planet’s lead Darwinist Richard Dawkins wrote the following, about that magnificent information system within the human cell, namely the human genome:

..it appears the amount of DNA in organisms is more than is strictly necessary for building them: a large fraction is never translated into protein.  Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing.

But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox.

The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.

..Richard Dawkins  The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed., pp. 44-5, Oxford University Press, 1989


This simpleton approach lasted at least two decades more, well into the era in which gebnuine microbiologists considered the genome an information system rather than a dustbin.  So, in a standard attack on creationists, Dawkins said in 2009:

It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us..

Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.

How strange for one claiming to be a scientist to call one’s own presumption a fact.  And how does a sane mind estimate that a perfectly functioning system, known by 2009 to have multiple layers of logic from the study of epigenetics, was 95% waste?  The latest ENCODE revelations show the genome to be crammed full of switches, toolboxes, logic circuits, boosters and suppressors.  A hive of vital system engineering: thank God the surgeons haven’t been able, thus far, to snip it out!


Repeated so many times, so it must be true! But what about survival of the most loved by parents.. survival of members the most collaborative and supportive group.. survival of the best designed.. survival of the most nurtured.. survival of the most inclusive system? No, survival of the fittest is easier to remember!

Darwinism has done immense damage with the catchphrase, “survival of the fittest”, and even though this phrase was not coined by Darwin, it was coined in his defence and repeated ad nauseum ever since.  It ignores that all components must work as a whole, and not with the aim of allowing one survivor.

Darwinists believe first life form was a simple, random arrangement, which nevertheless had all the complexities of reproduction.  Makes sense!

It was Marx who said, “Darwinism suits my purpose.”  And it was Hitler who twisted it into, “he who will not fight, does not deserve to live.”  The capitalists of the 19th century were equally keen to delineate between those who should do well, and those who could be worked to death.  Eugenics had an early start, and is still practiced today.  This all emanated from one bleak, noxious idea: that life was only about survival.

Survival of the Fittest

Redundant ideas die hard, if marketed properly. I mean, things go better with Coke – as long as you enjoy diabetes, aspartamine and carcinogens!

Far more truthful – and hardly altering Darwin’s precious theory – would have been “everything has a purpose.”  With that one modification, most of the shameful acts which relied on Darwin’s scientific “credentials” for justification, might never have been committed.  As a matter of fact, On the Origin of Species never dealt with the origin of any species, and nor could it, as those origins are still a mystery.


Survival of the most loved.

Was Dawkins, so fluent in randomese, dismayed by this blow to all he had propounded?  Taken aback, apologetic, remorseful?  Tsk – not at all!  In fact there’s a happy ending for Darwinists.  In a 2012 debate with Chief Rabbi Sacks, on the assumption that ENCODE implied nearly, if not all, the genome to be useful, Dawkins said rather triumphantly: “that nearly all the genome would actually turn out to be useful.. is exactly what Darwinists would hope for.”

Hmmm, now this makes me think: how exactly is Darwinism proved by anything and everything that ever did or didn’t happen..?

..that’s easy. It’s trivial!


Survival of the most co-operative

About iain carstairs

I have a great interest in both scientific advances and the beauty of religion, and created www.scienceandreligion.com about 15 years ago with the aim of finding common ground between the scientist and the believer, and to encourage debate between the two sides.
This entry was posted in Alfred Schultz, Appendix, Biology, Charles Darwin, ENCODE, Evolution, Human genome, Junk DNA, Junk DNA, Tonsils and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Specialist Subject: the Trivial!

  1. The points about the tonsils and appendix, especially the latter, are very interesting and quite damning, of the Darwinists especially, perhaps more than Darwin–not sure. Also, I would add to your colorful opening headlines “Feelings of group loyalty? Questions about the meaning of life? Mere irrationalities.” Trivial.

    • Yes, vestigial organs has been a 150 year fiasco, and surely we should modify our worldview when predictions arising from it prove a disaster. People don’t, because of emotional attachment, and the hope that perhaps from now on it will somehow reflect truth instead of error.

      Systems function when each piece reflects the same overall logic as all others. We accept that all the astronomical entities function as a totality, but still think biology must be a chaotic and random affair, and this “randomese” leads to all kinds of horror. The whole idea behind eugenics is that certain segments of society, which nature has produced, should be done away with to allow the superior segments to have a bigger share.

      The “law of the jungle” isn’t that the fittest survive, or else only one species would remain, bloated and aggressive and ruling all. It is that every component is required – and we remove it only from ignorance about the integrity of the whole. It is this rejection of integrity which I find noxious!

  2. Something else occurred to me too, which relates to this. As people started to think life was random and natural products pretty well ineffective, compared to man-made drugs, “advanced” societies started to leave behind natural foods, and the wisdom of generations who used herbs and natural remedies.

    Then some big problems started to arise with people’s health. Obesity, digestive problems, high blood pressure, liability to infections, tiredness, ulcers, cancers and so on. People were taking one drug for stomach problems, then another one to counteract the side effects of that one, and then a third, fourth, fifth and so on. My mother was recently given a drug for some asthma, and ended up incapacitated on the floor, taking more than two weeks to regain her appetite and recover. These things can be extremely dangerous. Torcetrapib was a straightforward blocking system designed to cut down cholesterol, with the unfortunate side effect of death. Whoops!

    The cost, and human intelligence injected into these studies is enormous:

    In the terminated trial, a 60% increase in deaths was observed among patients taking torcetrapib and atorvastatin versus taking atorvastatin alone. Pfizer recommended that all patients stop taking the drug immediately.

    Six studies were terminated early. One of the completed studies found it raised systolic blood pressure and concluded “Torcetrapib showed no clinical benefit in this or other studies, and will not be developed further.”

    The drug cost $800m+ to bring into Phase III development.


    As science advanced, it became possible to study the molecular workings of ordinary things like fruit, herbs and so on. The mechanisms found have been astonishing. Resveratrol, for exmaple – a product of grapeseed – has amazing benefits for digestion. You can try this out for yourself. Enzymes in Papaya can tear fibrin (the tough material surroundnig cancer cells and attaching it to body tissues, and the stuff which can collect in blood vesels) apart at the rate of 30,000 pieces per second. So papaya – an innocuous looking fruit – has more health benefits, including anti-tumour qualities – than some of man’s strongest drugs. Man-made enzymes act at about 2 operations per second, comparing to these F1 chainsaws, like papain and bromelaine. This is the kind of technology you’d expect if you assumed Nature had an intelligence encompassing all the needs of man’s body. It doesn’t mean you stop investigating; it just means you start with the worldview that this kind of natural technology is going to be perfectly suited to man, not some randomly developed aberration that is mainly junk – which is how some people seem to view the DNA, which is a shocking way to think.

    The health benefits of simple fruits and vegetables are astounding, and this is all natural technology, 100% compatible with the human body. So the idea that parts of the Earth’s ecosystem could be chucked out and replaced with some gimmicky technology as we think of it – without us understanding the whole system – is only now starting to be eaten away, with great resistence from the coin boxes running Big Pharma.

    The result will eventually be that people return to a natural, organic diet and solutions, after 100 years of massive damage. 60% of America is now obese! And diabetes is a major killer. Half of us are going to get cancer at some point. WTF?! Why did we ever leave those tried and tested ways? Because we regarded nature as a chaotic, randomly developed technology that did not arise from intelligence and therefore wasn’t worth a light next to big pharma and factory food. But it’s looking pretty damn smart next to our destructive crap now… so a big tip o’ the hat to Mr Darwin again!

  3. Cherry Hanz says:

    And now you get to experience this truth in a highly personal way:)

  4. Yes, but if only I had discovered this years ago! I had a brush with melanoma in 2002, and after it had all been dealt with a friend encouraged me to call a psychic who was very good at diagnosing from a distance. My friend is an excitable Greek and nagged me every time we spoke.

    So I gave in, or perhaps I just hoped to hear something encouraging. Anyway, the woman was very polite and friendly and said all signs of my eye tumour were gone, but that my lungs were not breathing deeply, because of stress, and that the electronic environment I was immersed in was unhealthy. I needed running water, she said, and the oxygenation “matrix” from which cancer had emerged could emerge again unless I improved the oxygenation of my cells. I work with computers! This information was highly unwelcome!

    This was in 2003 and it all seemed like a very tenuous link, and perhaps because I was crestfallen to hear such a thing, or because I found aerobic exercise very boring, I dismissed her as a pessimist, a panic monger. I only recently found out that the lymph system is activated through exercise, and of course, that oxygenation is the whole mechanism defending from cancer.

    Apologies, psychic diagnoser, wherever you are!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s