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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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..?