Sunday, July 31, 2011

Charles Darwin in Australia

Charles Darwin visited Australia as a young man in 1836. After his first day in Sydney he wrote:

In the evening I walked through the town & returned full of admiration at the whole scene. It is a most magnificent testimony of the power of the British nation. Here, in a less promising country, scores of years have done many times more than an equal number of centuries have effected in South America. My first feeling was to congratulate myself that I was born an Englishman.

I'm so unused to such a positive sense of identity from educated Anglos that this passage jumped out at me. Darwin observed that his own countrymen had in a few decades created a beautiful, well-ordered city in a difficult terrain - and he recognised the accomplishment.

Darwin also recorded his thoughts regarding the Aborigines. He was impressed with their hunting skills:

In their own arts they are admirable; a cap being fixed at 30 yards distance, they transfixed it with the spear ... In tracking animals & men they show a most wonderful sagacity.

However, he also observed that the Aborigines would not make use of opportunities to farm or to live a more settled life:

They will not however cultivate the ground, or even take the trouble of keeping flocks of sheep which have been offered them; or build houses & remain stationary

Nor did they give up their tribal warfare:

I should have mentioned that in addition to their state of independence of the Whites, the different tribes go to war. In an engagement which took place lately, the parties, very singularly, chose the centre of the village of Bathurst as the place of engagement; the conquered party took refuge in the Barracks

Darwin thought the numbers of Aborigines were declining:

The decrease in numbers must be owing to the drinking of Spirits, the European diseases, even the milder ones of which such as the Measles are very destructive, & the gradual extinction of the wild animals.

There's an interesting passage in the book in which Darwin expresses sympathy for families having to employ convict servants. He writes about the male convicts and then notes "The female servants are of course much worse". So perhaps the men of Darwin's generation did not thoughtlessly "white knight" all women as is sometimes claimed.

Although Darwin was unimpressed with certain aspects of the convict system, he nonetheless thought there was a positive larger outcome:

But as a means of making men outwardly honest - of converting vagabonds most useless in one hemisphere into active citizens of another, and thus giving birth to a new and splendid country - a grand centre of civilization - it has succeeded to a degree perhaps unparalleled in history.

35 comments:

  1. Thanks for the post Mark.

    It is good to see people proud of their culture.

    I went to a wedding today and the minister did not mention Children in the ceremony.

    I, being the insulting jerk that I am, went up to him afterwards privately and said that the purpose of marriage was to have children. He said that he did not mention children in the wedding ceremony because he did not want people who chose Not to Have Children or those Unable to Have Children to Feel Bad.

    To Feel Bad.

    ???

    I told him that his speech could apply to my best friend or my family. That I didn't need marriage to have that type of relationship.

    I told him there was no point for those other couples to get married (not the ones who discover they are unable..but it would take years to find that out)

    And even if a couple physically can't have kids....they can still then take Pride in Helping Their Other Family Members Raise Children. (I don't believe in stealing children from africa aka adoption)

    Then I told him that his goal was to encourage his congregants to have kids because we are Going Extinct and There won't be any Christians in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now for the evil part...now remember I read CWNY and I'm a racist :)

    I said the children thing to my mother on my way out, which was overheard by the ONE black woman there.

    She proudly said "My husband and I can't have kids, you can be married and not have children" [FTR her happiness in her declartion made me think she didn't mind being childless]

    So basically the black American woman (aka homo erectus 'who never allows white people to say anything that could offend them') Because of the fear of Offending This One Woman...the preacher has to get rid of all mention of THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE.

    I thought it was very apropo that the woman was black. LOL

    If this woman cared about her fellow white congregation (HA!), she'd be like "marriage is about children, though I am unable to conceive...I fulfill my marriage duty by taking an active part in helping my brother/sisters raise their children."

    Anyways....that's my story...

    ReplyDelete
  3. So perhaps the men of Darwin's generation did not thoughtlessly "white knight" all women as is sometimes claimed.

    Many Victorian men were extremely critical of women. To the extent that 'woman hater' was a generally understood adjective ascribed to some men.

    Of course those 'woman haters' never wrote 'game' blogs with fictitious tales of their own cynical romantic conquests so this is all forgotten now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Charles Darwin in Sydney, New South Wales: "My first feeling was to congratulate myself, that I was born an Englishman".

    With 21st century Britain now litttle more than an anti-Christian debt-riddled basket-case, we no longer see or read of any, say, English politician publically declaring how pleased they are at being born an Englishman. Nor do we see or read of any British prime minister actually working for the good of the British nation (in the original meaning of the word), or for the good of Englishmen.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ""So perhaps the men of Darwin's generation did not thoughtlessly "white knight" all women as is sometimes claimed.""

    They did tend to do so to women of their own class I think it is fair to say.

    To "all" women? hell no. The women of the underclass were held by polite society to be far the worse of their "dead-eyed" male companions.

    ""But as a means of making men outwardly honest - of converting vagabonds most useless in one hemisphere into active citizens of another, and thus giving birth to a new and splendid country - a grand centre of civilization - it has succeeded to a degree perhaps unparalleled in history.""

    I think I need that as a tattoo. May hurt a little.

    ""Of course those 'woman haters' never wrote 'game' blogs with fictitious tales of their own cynical romantic conquests so this is all forgotten now.""

    Now that is funny.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They did tend to do so to women of their own class I think it is fair to say.

    Good point.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I'm so unused to such a positive sense of identity from educated Anglos that this passage jumped out at me."

    It made me laugh instantly when I read this line. Then very soon I began to feel pretty sad and disheartened. I have written an article to specifically criticize Australian's over-victimization of the aborigines and denial of its own Anglo-Saxon roots. People ought to be more proud of their roots and civilization in the developed world. I would argue the same to my own country, which also suffers a twisted raise-up-one-fist-to-punch-one's-own-face symptom.

    The success of Australia in the past is a great example of the advancement of modern civilization, kids in Australia ought to take pride in that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "But as a means of making men outwardly honest - of converting vagabonds most useless in one hemisphere into active citizens of another, and thus giving birth to a new and splendid country - a grand centre of civilization - it has succeeded to a degree perhaps unparalleled in history."

    The trouble is, vagabonds ain't what they used to be.
    Gilbert Pinfold.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for the post. I rarely hear about his views on nationalism (the discussion tends to be about evolution and Darwinianism).

    Many Victorian men were extremely critical of women. To the extent that 'woman hater' was a generally understood adjective ascribed to some men.

    Of course those 'woman haters' never wrote 'game' blogs with fictitious tales of their own cynical romantic conquests so this is all forgotten now.


    Thanks for the info.

    ReplyDelete
  10. They (Victorian men) criticised women of their own class, too. Just read some good Victorian literature. Some of those stories were filmed by Hollywood with the misogynist parts being naturally edited out.

    For English speaking readers, try some Dickens. In Pikwick club there is a moment when Sam's father tells him if he ever wishes to marry it would be better for him to go home and take a dose of poison immediately, or something to the point. How is this for MGTOW?

    Dickens also mocked the feminised church and women who spent the time working for charities to save all the Africans while neglecting their own homes, husbands and children.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I recall Dickens was considered a little bit of a radical in his day though. Despite his popularity I don't know if his works really reflect Victorian attitudes.

    He had an almost Romanticist disdain for the "grasping" new money oriented middle classes and they usually get a treatment in his books.

    Then again so does everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "In the evening I walked through the town & returned full of admiration at the whole scene - It is a most magnificent testimony of the power of the British nation: here, in a less promising country, scores of years have effected many times over, more than centuries in South America..."

    Indeed. Australia's rapid development from a far-flung penal colony into one of the world's most prosperous, developed, egalitarian societies within the space of a few generations is certainly testament to the resourcefulness, determination, intelligence and cultural prowess of the early British settlers. It was really was a most remarkable achievement.

    Tragically, Australian schoolchildren are no longer taught the achievements of the early settlers. Rather, they are told that the British settlement of Australia was illegitimate as it resulted in the displacement of nomadic Aboriginal peoples. Australian history is taught as one long guilt trip, with students being incessantly reminded that Australia were settled atop indigenous skulls, so the land-grabbing descendants of those genocidal white racists have no right to claim this nation as their own, celebrate their nation-building achievements or resent being gradually displaced themselves by non-European newcomers.

    A nation ashamed of its past to the point where it questions its own legitimacy is one without a future.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Genesis 2:21-22, "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

    Genesis 11:9, "Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." From Genesis 11:9, it is clear that languages were not diversified prior to the event of Genesis 11:9. Or in other words, human beings spoke one language prior to the event of Genesis 11:9..

    ReplyDelete
  14. Let’s assume that evolution could be true. As all animals and plants could be traced back to a common ancestor, the common ancestor must be one that has to be capable in asexual reproduction. The only living things that could be found to be asexual reproduction are archaea, bacteria, protists, algae and fungi. As all these living things are either micro-organisms or the selected plants instead of any other living things, it implies the common ancestor could be either micro-organism or the selected plants. There are a few queries have to be raised pertaining to the reliability of the source that has been used to support the evolution:

    a)Biologists did successfully clone animals in the past and even to use the gene to improve the animals. However, what they clone, it just improves the living thing instead of modifying it into different kind of animals. If they would clone any animals, such as cow, they still produce cow at the end of the experiment without causing it to stream out into different kind of animal, such as giraffe or etc. Has there any experiment been performed in the past that could develop into a more complexity of animals, such as, from micro-organism to worm or fly or etc.? If none of the scientists have done the experiment successfully in converting micro-organism into a worm or fly or etc., other than merely a micro-organism, the evolutionary theory is simply a concept without being tested.

    b)As the common ancestor could be micro-organism or a selected plant, it is simply without bone structure or could be one that could have either plant embryo or animal. As this common ancestor could be an algae or fungi or archaea or protists or etc., how could it be able to be developed into both plants and animals with complexity of bone structure? Did biologists perform the experiment successfully to convert any of these living things into a more complexity of animal, such as, worm or fly or etc.? Or else, the evolution theory is just a concept without being tested.

    c)As this common ancestor could be either plant embryo or animal, how could it be able to stream out into plants as well as animals? Or in other words, how could this common ancestor be able to produce plant embryo as well as animal despite it was simply either micro-organism or plant? Did the biologists perform the experiment in the past successfully to cause micro-organism to be able to convert into both plants as well as animals with complexity of nature?

    Refer to the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant under the sub-title of ‘Evolution’. A proposed phylogenetic tree of Plantae has been drawn. There are a few queries pertaining to the reliability of the evolution tree:

    There is a great work done in joining plants from one to another to determine the process of evolution. However, a query has to be raised whether the tree of evolution has been drawn through fixing the plants that ought to be there due to by comparing of feature of plants instead of through testing and observing the nature that these could occur. Let’s give you an illustration: From the chart, it could come to the conclusion that Chlorophyta was the predecessor right before the plants, i.e.Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese and Trebouxiophyoese. Did any biologists see or did perform experiment that Ulvophyoese could transform into Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese as well as Trebouxiophyoese in the past? If they did not do the experiment and just fixed them into the evolution tree due to the feature and/or the nature of these plants, it implies that there was no eye-witness or experiment did in the past to prove that Ulvophyoese could be able to evolve to Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese and Trebouxiophyoese.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Some biologists might comment that evolution tree might be done through thousands and thousands of individual bits of data–observations made in the real world, testable and repeatable by anyone who takes the time to look. Things like the shapes of bones and how they fit together, genetic sequences, behaviors, developmental sequences, shared features with fossil forms and so on. As they did not perform the test whether the plants or animals could be transformed in accordance to the evolution tree that has been drawn, there could be a possibility that the evolution could not be workable as what has been laid out in the evolution tree. Besides, the plants could have been created in the beginning with identical features and they were not the result of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There are quite a number of sophisticated animals in this world could be able to perform asexual reproduction.  Could there be any possibility that a common ancestor could be an animal instead of micro-organism or plant?Let’s assume that this common ancestor could be a sophisticated animal since many of these animals in this world could perform asexual reproduction and these include bees, ants, wasps, scorpions, hammerhead, sharks and the Komodo Dragon.  Despite these animals could perform asexual reproduction, it is irrational to assume that the common ancestor of all living things could be an animal for the following reasons: i)It is irrational to assume that the common ancestor could start up with an animal.  This is due to the so-called, animal (common ancestor), has to develop backward into micro-organism instead of evolving into a more complexity of living thing.  As all living things have been assumed by evolutionists to have a common ancestor, this so-called, animal (common ancestor), would evolve into micro-organism, this certainly contradicts the teaching of evolution theory since this animal (common ancestor)  has to be grown backward instead of evolving. ii)If the common ancestor could be an animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to have plant embryo, animal as well as micro-organism?  As it is irrational to have such a common ancestor as animal to reproduce offspring to have plant embryo as well as micro-organism, how could the common ancestor be a sophisticated animal? iii)If the common ancestor could be a vertebrate animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to develop into invertebrate offspring and vice versa? iv)According to the evolution’s theory, living things should have been evolved from time to time.  It is rational to assume that living things should be started up with micro-organism instead of from the complexity of animal.  This is due to it would have started to evolve from the initial living thing to the ultimate complexity of creature.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Awaiting the arrival of my fiance, I listened to bill bryson's book ... I had a great time, and when he mentioned darwin's looks I googled on ... Found the blogs ... Fun stuff guys!
    Alas, i'm just a dumb sports writer with no opinions on all the aussie stuff, but I had fun reading your opinions!
    Go utesz

    ReplyDelete
  18. I wouldnt do the annony thing, but at 10,000 at the cabin using only my phone it was hard enough!p

    ReplyDelete
  19. Refer to the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1698033/pdf/12952654.pdf, pertaining to the advantages of hair loss.  However, there are more reasons that the hair loss among human beings could not bring about the advantages of human beings and this brings the query about why there have to be hair loss among animals and in turn, the query about the reliability of evolution: a)It is mentioned in this website that humans evolved hairlessness to reduce parasite loads, especially ectoparasites that may carry disease.  This might seem to be true at a glance.  However, this could not be true on our heads since the hair on our heads could keep on growing and this would lead to ultimate parasite loads if it were uncut for more than 30 years.  The total mass of the hair that a person would keep for 30 years would be a number of times heavier than the hair that has grown up in apes’ body.  The only thing that causes human beings to differ from apes is the hair among the apes has been distributed over their bodies and yet human beings’ hair is concentrated on their heads.  When we compare the hair from human beings and apes, human beings could be parasite loads, whether in length or in mass, when the hair was uncut for more than 30 years.  Thus, the hair among human beings could not reduce parasite loads.  Instead, it might turn up to be the other way round to increase parasite loads on the condition that human beings did not cut their hair for more than 30 years.  Thus, the hair loss among human beings and to cause it to grow continuously over the head might increase parasite loads and causes a disadvantage to human beings if their hair were uncut for more than 30 years.  The over-concentration of hair growth on heads would not show any advantage in the long run since it would increase parasite loads.  

    ReplyDelete
  20. Biologists have used atavisms and ERVs to support evolution theory.

    Refer to the website addresses, http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/atavism-embryology-development-and-evolution-843, pertaining to the explanation of atavisms. The following are the extracts:

    Humans do not have tails, but do we have “what it takes” for a tail? Hens don’t have teeth, but they have the genes for it. With atavism, it is as if our genomes serve as archives of our evolutionary past.

    The following are the possibilities that atavisms might not be the good source to support evolution:

    1)The appearance of atavisms among living things in the past might not give the implication that certain animals could be evolved from another due to it might be the result of the poor condition of the genes or DNA or sperms or menses or etc., itself that would have led to the exceptional physical shortfalls or the excessive and extraordinary growth in the physical bodies by accident that have nothing to do with evolution.

    Refer to the websites addresses below for abnormal growth of certain parts of their bodies among animals in the past: http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/showthread.php?t=6176, http://www.google.com.sg/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kashvet.org/oasis/wp- http://parkviewgallery.com/abnormal-animal-, picturescontent/uploads/2008/11/image099.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kashvet.org/oasis/pathological/bovine-fetal-mummification/&h=398&w=554&sz=65&tbnid=EDw-IFHW0vusMM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=126&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dabnormal%2Banimals%2Bpictures%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=abnormal+animals+pictures&docid=Dm0Lz2oFMRhfvM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AmN6TpyoH8jjrAePp8CsDw&ved=0CC0Q9QEwAw&dur=703.

    From the above pictures of the websites address, could a person come to the conclusion that living things could have their ancestors with more than one head due to pigs and human beings, turtles and etc., could give birth to their offspring with more than a head? Could a person comment that his ancestor could be born with three legs by seeing the horse that has been born with three legs? Could a person mention that his ancestor could be born with eyes balls without eyes pupils just judging that there have been blind men or women that have been born without eyes pupils? Could a person comment that his ancestor could be born with six fingers per hand simply by judging that there are human beings that have been born with six fingers from time to time? Could a person comment that his ancestor, i.e. the animal, could be mentally retarded, by judging that some human beings are born to be so even though their parents are physically healthy? Thus, it is irrational to use the abnormal growth of living thing, such as, fingers, tail, extra bones, and etc., to arrive at a conclusion that this animal should be the ancestor of this or that for the support of evolution. This is due to atavisms might be occurred in accident or as a result of the poor condition as well as malfunction of gene or DNA or sperms or menses that might have led to abnormal growth or the weakness in genes that ultimately might have led to physical shortfalls or the excessive growth of flesh, bones and etc., that would seem to look alike as certain features of other ancestors.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 2)Atavisms might also occur as a result of external factors that would influence the genes or DNAs or etc. to cause abnormal growth that would have led to animals with extraordinary feature that could not be found commonly among them, such as, tail from human beings in the past or skeleton that seems to be leg from whale or etc. This might not be able to serve as an evidence if this were merely the cause of flesh and bone that have grown abnormally due to certain bad physical condition of genes and DNA as a result of the influence of external factors, such as, the poor physical bodies of their parents that give rise to poor genes; or the illnesses of their parents that could cause the defect of genes or DNA to the ultimate formation of abnormal living things; or the direct attack and influence of bacteria that could ultimately cause the genes or DNA to be in defect; or etc. This ultimately would lead to animals to have given birth to offspring to have the co-incidence that have the feature that could not be found commonly among their kind of animals instead, from others.

    Refer to the website address, http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=3914, pertaining to the evidence that ERVs could be used as an evidence to support evolution theory. The following are the reasons that ERVs might not be suitable to be used as an evidence to support evolution theory:

    1)There could be a possibility that a living thing would have been created initially to have the identical feature or ERVs or genes or DNA or pattern or anatomy or genomes or etc., as others co-incidentally instead of by means of evolution. If that could be so during the creation, it is irrational to arrive at the conclusion that this animal could be the ancestor of the others by means of comparing the similarities of genes or DNA; or the similarities of loci in the genomes; or etc.

    2)As there are only a few animals in the fossils, such as, dinosaurs fossils, could be dug out by archeologists and yet the population of the animals that are in the fossils in the past should be more than hundred or million especially at the place where the fossils have been dug out, there places a possibility about the missing fossils in which many animals, such as, dinosaurs, would have their bones and skulls to turn into dust and vanished in the ground. If that could be so, the arrangement of animals in the timeline of homo sapiens would be in question. For instance, how could we know that human beings were once alive prior to 15 Ma? Biologists have placed human beings after the apes’ period was due to they could not locate any human skulls prior to 15 Ma. What if human beings did exist prior to 15 Ma and yet their bones and skulls would have been vanished under the ground and this would have resulted that no evidence could prove the existence of human beings prior to 15 Ma. This certainly would turn the timeline upside down that biologists might suggest that human beings would evolve to apes. Thus, the possibility of missing fossils has placed the reliability of timeline of homo sapiens into question.

    3)Biologists did not perform experiment to ensure that human beings could be evolved from animals. Besides, nobody in this world did have eye-witness that animals could evolve from one to another. Thus, their theory simply is not tested. This places the reliability of evolution theory to be in question.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 4)The irregularity of probabilities of genes as well as DNA in the website address, http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm, pertaining to DNA sequence in the genome of other organisms has placed the reliability of evolution theory into question.
    The probabilities of human gene sequence that codes for protein are extracted from the website address above as follows: Chimpanzee (100%); Dog (99%); Mouse (99%); Chicken (75%); Fruitfly (60%); and Roundworm (35%). From the list of the probabilities of the human gene sequence that codes for protein, it is obvious that there is an irregularity of human gene among these animals. The probability for roundworm (35%) is lesser than fruitfly (60%) despite the size of the roundworm might be comparatively bigger than the fruitfly. Not only that, mouse should be smaller in size than chicken and yet its probability could be far as high as 99%. In comparison of the capability to adapt the environment or in terms of size, dog could be no much better than chimpanzee and yet the probability of the dog could be as high as 99%. As there is an irregularity of probability of human gene sequence that codes for protein among the animals above, it places the query about the reliability of evolution theory into question. This is due to it is rational to think that the smallest animals could have the lowest probability of human genes than the biggest as a result of evolution. The initial common ancestor might well be small in size. As and when the animals keep on evolving, the creatures would turn up to be bigger in size in each evolution with the improvement in the development of gene. As the probabilities of human gene sequence that codes for protein show irregular genes among animals, it does not seem to provide a clue that existing animals would have been formed from evolution. Why should there be an irregularity of human gene that codes for protein among animals?

    The probabilities of human random DNA segment between genes could not code for proteins among different animals are listed below: Chimpanzee (98%); Dog (52%); Mouse (40%); Chicken (4%); Fruitfly (-0%); and Roundworm (-0%). Again, despite the mouse is smaller in size as compared to chicken, yet the probability of human DNA that could be located in mouse is much higher than it. The dog is slightly bigger in size as compared to chicken and yet the probability of human DNA could be as high as 52%. Thus, the probabilities of human random DNA segment between genes among animals are irregular. As there are irregularities of probability of DNA among the animals, it is hard to use these variations to conclude animals would have been evolved from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Some biologists might comment that the adverse evolution from complexity of animals to simplicity was merely the result of genetic deletion. The following are the website addresses for the proof that biologists did perform successfully in causing the change of feature of animals through genetic deletion or insertion or duplication or even amplification:
    http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_65878.asp, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5221/230.short,
    http://physiolgenomics.physiology.org/content/37/3/249.full, http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/17460913.2.3.309?journalCode=fmb, http://sommeil.univ-lyon1.fr/articles/valatx/jsr_99/print.php
    Despite genetic deletion or insertion or amplification or etc. has been performed successfully upon mice or even bacteria, they could only alter the feature of the living thing, such as, changing its characteristics or behaviour or etc. However, they could not transform that living thing, such as, bacteria, into another type, such as, bee or etc. Or in other words, when a genetic deletion or insertion or etc. would be performed on a specific animal, such as, mice, the end result still remains as that animal, i.e. mice, instead of creating a new creature. As they could not transform the more complexity of animals into simplicity through genetic deletion or vice versa, it is irrational to use genetic deletion or insertion or amplification or etc. to support that animals could be evolved from one to another through one of these methods since biologists could only change the feature of animals instead of creating new creatures through these experiments.

    ReplyDelete
  24. There is a shortfall of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory supports that all creatures have its derivation from a single cell in the beginning. However, there would be a number of new cells to be created in the beginning on the condition that the environmental condition at that time could be suitable for the production of new cell. Why should there be only one and only cell to be created when the surrounding condition would seem best for the creation of living thing? If there could be one and only cell to be created at that time, what made it to be so so that there could only be one cell to be formed? If there would be more than a single cell to be created at that time due to the environmental condition, evolutionary theory is in question since how all creatures would have a common ancestor when there might be a number of cells to be created at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If many cells or more complex creatures would be created in the beginning of all living things due to the good environmental factors at that that to ease their creation, there would be one or more identical cells or more complex creatures to be created at that time that would likely be evolved into creatures that have the identical genes or DNA. As there would be likely to have this incidence due to the mass production of new cells or new creatures as a result of the good enviornmental condition that would deem best for the creation of all living things, the tracing of common ancestor of all living things might not be justifiable due to living things might not have come from the same cell or same creature from the beginning of their creation instead, they could be from cells or more complex creatures that would have the identical feature that would have the opportunity to be developed into creatures with identical DNA or genes provided that evolutionary theory is reliable. If that could be true, the tracing of all living things from a common ancestor would be in question since there might not be any link from one creature to another due to the co-incidence of creation of many cells or many more complex creatures with identical feature in the beginning of all living things that would have the opportunity to be developed into creatures with identical DNA or genes but yet their common ancestors might well differ.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The following is the website in which it explains how single cells (unicellular organisms), could be transformed into a multicellular organism in the process of evolution.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/

    In this website, it is mentioned that single cells should have secreted enzymes initially so as to pull all the cells together to cause the ultimate formation of multicellular organism.

    The explanation to link up single cells to the formation of multicellular organism seems to be logical at a glance. However, detailed examination would have caused many queries to be brought forth.

    a)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the sea in the beginning of its evolution be hardened so as to cause them to be bound up to the ultimate formation of multicellular organism, i.e. algae? By logic, it could only be possible for unicellar organisms to be bound up in the dry place when many of them would have come together at a fixed place. When they finished the food supplies, the place dried up and so they stuck together. It was not possible to the formation of multicellular orgainism in the sea especially scientists assumed many were formed in the sea. The reason is simply that sea water was wet and it was not possible for numerous unicellular organisms to be bound up tightly as a result of the existence of surrounding sea water. As that could be so, how could multicellular organism, i.e. algae, be able to be formed in the sea? The existence of the surrounding sea water would not cause numerous unicellular organisms to be bound up tightly especially the existence of sea wave.

    b)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the land be able to be pooled up together if they would be located in different area in the land? It was also impossible for unicellular organisms to be pooled up in the land so as to form a multicellular organism especially the existence of friction of rocks and sands.

    c)In the wide sea, it is impossible for numerous unicellular organisms to come together despite of their secreting. Let’s give an example. An unicellular organism in the North Pole would not be able to be pooled up to another unicellular organism that would be located in the South Pole. How could numerous unicellular organisms be able to come together so as to form multicellular organism when they were located different regions in the wide sea? The existence of sea wave would hinder them to come together as a pool. Besides, the existence of sea wave would also cause the secreted enzymes to spread all around the sea. As the discharge of enzymes could be spread all around the sea easily as a result of sea wave, it would not be possible for them to come together so as to form multicellular organism.

    d)By logic, when unicellular organism combined to turn up to multicellular organism, the function of each unicellular organism within the multicellular organism would remain the same. This is by virtue of every unicellular organism would react the same way in habit or in routine movement after the formation of multicellular organism. There should not be any reason why there should be any discrepancy of their behaviour between unicellular organism and multicellular organism especially multicellular organism, i.e. algae, has been treated by scientists to have its origin from unicellular organism. For example, how could it be possible that the capacity of regeneration for unicellular organism was present and yet there was a reduction in the capability for regeneration for multicellular organism? The presence of discrepancy between nunicellular and unicellar has caused us to ponder whether multicellular organism in the beginning of the creation should have its derivation from unicellular organism.

    Refer to the website address below pertaining to all the discrepancies between unicellular organisms and multicellular organisms:

    http://bankofbiology.blogspot.sg/2012/03/comparison-between-unicell...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Refer to the website below pertaining to the belief of the possibility of the existence of multicellular organisms on Mars without any evidence of the presence of fossils:

    http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-8837-7_6#

    The existence of unicellular organisms on Mars is confirmed in the website address below:

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-08-07/news/1996220012_1_mars-...

    Read carefully the heading in the above website:
    SCIENTISTS DISCOVER EVIDENCE that life existed on Mars Single-cell organisms, not 'little green men,' says NASA director

    As the phrase, scientists discover evidence, is mentioned in the website above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of the existence of single-cell organisms.
    Some might argue the heading of the website address above might not support the existence of unicellular organisms due to the phrase, may have existed, is mentioned in the description after the heading. The following statement is extracted from the website above:

    ‘In a statement issued yesterday, as unofficial word of the discovery spread, NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin confirmed that scientists had "made a startling discovery that points to the possibility that a primitive form of microscopic life MAY HAVE EXISTED on Mars MORE THAN 3 BILLION YEARS AGO." ’

    The phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, as mentioned above implies the uncertainty that scientists have whether the discovery of unicellular organisms could be more than 3 billion years ago or less. They realize their existence. However, they do not know the exact date of their derivation and that is why the phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, is mentioned.

    The presence of hydrothermal vents on Mars could be located in the website below:

    http://www.space.com/5374-hydrothermal-vents-mars-supported-life.html

    Read carefully the heading in the above website:
    Hydrothermal Vents on Mars Could Have Supported Life

    As the phrase, Hydrothermal Vents, is mentioned above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of hydrothermal vents.

    Unicellular organisms could live in critical condition especially in the oil. The following is the website that supports it: http://www.mpg.de/791317/W005_Environment-Climate_078-083.pdf

    From the above extracts, it could confirm the existence of unicellular organisms and hydrothermal vents on Mars.

    Let’s assume that scientists would be true that the existence of hydrothermal vents would cause unicellular organisms to turn up to be multicellular organisms. Why is it that scientists still have not discovered any fossils of multicellular organisms on Mars despite the presence of hydrothermal vents currently? They did mention of their existence and yet their conclusion was based on assumption and belief without reliable evidence of fossils. It seems to be that the presence of hydrothermal vents does not provide a clear sign of the existence of fossils of multicellular organisms. Besides, if unicellular organisms would work as what evolutionary theory mentions that they would be united to form a multicellular organism, why is it that scientists still could not locate any bigger fossils of living creatures on Mars even though scientists have assumed that it was formed in 4.6 billion years ago about the same time as the earth as mentioned in the website below:

    http://www.space.com/16912-how-was-mars-made.html

    ReplyDelete
  28. Given the information by scientists that both earth and Mars would be created almost at the same time, why is it that gigantic creatures could be evolved on earth from time to time and yet not on the Mars? Despite the time would be long enough since the creation of Mars for multicellular organisms to be evolved into gigantic animals as the earth, yet none of the bigger fossils could be located on Mars. The absence of fossils for bigger living creatures on Mars has placed the reliability of evolution into question. The reason is simply that if evolutionary theory could work on earth, why is it that it does not work on Mars to produce gigantic living creatures?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Let’s put it in another scenario. There was no unicellular organism or multicellular organism on Mars. The assumption would turn up to be worse in the sense that evolutionary theory would not be workable in reality.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/life-mars-p... , indicating the environmental condition on Mars is suitable for life to begin:
    The rover’s lead scientist Prof Steve Squyres said: “Before detecting any clay minerals, ­Opportunity had mostly been discovering sulphuric acid or evidence of it.
    “Clay minerals tend to form only at a more neutral pH. This is water you could drink.
    "It was much more favourable for things like prebiotic chemistry – the kind that could lead to the origin of life.”

    The same is supported in the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206179 , explaining the Mars is the place that is suitable for unicellular organism to be formed:

    ‘Temperature, humidity, pressure, composition of the atmosphere and radiation are the main factors conditioning life on the surface of Mars. When studying the Martian ecology, one must know the total effect of these factors. One may expect that, as a result of adaptation to low temperatures, there is a corresponding shift in the temperature optimum of enzymatic activity. Dryness is the main obstacle to active life. We suggest the presence of some soil moisture and water vapour. Moreover, there can be areas of permafrost. This minimum supply of water and periodic fluctuations of humidity may create conditions for the existence of drought-resistant organisms. Decreased atmospheric pressure alone does not affect micro-organisms, plants, protozoa and even insects. Ciliates reproduce in a flowing atmosphere of pure nitrogen containing 0.0002-0.0005% oxygen as an impurity. Protozoa may also develop in an atmosphere of 98-99% carbon dioxide mixed with 1% O2. Therefore, even traces of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere would be sufficient for aerobic unicellular organisms. Cells and organisms on earth have acquired various ways of protection from uv light, and therefore may increase their resistance further by adaptation or selection. The resistance of some organisms to ionizing radiation is high enough to enable them to endure hard ionizing radiation of the sun. Experiments with unicellular [correction of unicellar] organisms show that the effect of short wave uv radiation depends on the intensity of visible light, long-wave solar uv radiation, temperatures, cell repair processes, and the state of cell components, i.e. whether the cell was frozen, dried or hydrated.’

    The same is supported in other websites below:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130312-mars-life-cu...
    http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-was-suitable-for-life-scientis...

    Despite the presence of environmental condition on Mars that would be suitable for the formation of unicellular and multicellular organisms and that the earth and Mars were formed about the same time, the non-existence of organisms on Mars would imply that evolutionary theory could only be permanently an assumption and could not be workable in reality. The reason is simply that nothing could be formed on Mars despite the presence of its environmental condition is suitable for organisms to be formed. If evolutionary theory is workable, why is it that none of the organisms could be evolved on Mars despite the environmental condition is the same as the earth that has the potentiality to develop organisms?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Scientists support that unicellular organisms would integrate with each other to turn up to be in multicellular organism in the presence of hydrothermal vents. The absence of multicellular organism on Mars despite the presence of unicellular organisms as well as hydrothermal vents, implies that it is impossible for unicellular organisms to be converted to multicellular organism. Hence, this proves the evolutionary theory is not workable in reality.

    Even if unicellular and multicellular organisms would be in existence on Mars, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has too placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question. Why is it that multicellular organisms on Mars could not evolve into gigantic living creatures if evolutionary theory is true?

    Nevertheless, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has placed evolutionary theory into question if unicellular organisms do exist on Mars.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The discrepancies between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth:

    The scriptural verses about the beginning of the earth:

    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

    Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”

    As the phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially covered with water.

    As the phrase, let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies that land should appear lately. If the land should appear first, there should not be any reason for the scripture to mention with the phrase, let the dry land appear. Besides, it would not be possible for the scripture to mention with the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, if the land should have appeared before the existence of sea. Even if one might assume that land and sea water would coexist in the beginning in the creation of the earth, why should the scripture mention with the phrase, Let the dry land appear, as if that there was no land initially on earth?


    The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html , pertaining to the evolution of the earth:

    4650 mya: Formation of chondrules in the Solar Nebula
    - 4567 mya: Formation of the Solar System
    Sun was only 70% as bright as today.
    - 4500 mya: Formation of the Earth.
    - 4450 mya: The Moon accretes from fragments
    of a collision between the Earth and a planetoid;
    Moon's orbit is beyond 64,000 km from the Earth.[33]
    EARTH DAY IS 7 HOUR’S LONG[34]
    - Earth's original hydrogen and helium atmosphere
    escapes Earth's gravity.
    - 4455 mya: Tidal locking causes one side
    of the Moon to face the Earth permanently.[30]
    - 3900 mya: Cataclysmic meteorite bombardment.
    The Moon is 282,000 km from Earth.[34]
    EARTH DAY IS 14.4 HOURS LONG[34]
    - Earth's atmosphere becomes mostly
    carbon dioxide, water vapor,
    methane, and ammonia.
    - Formation of carbonate minerals starts
    reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
    - There is no geologic record for the Hadean Eon.

    My comment: As listed above, the earth day was 7 hour’s long in 4450 mya and yet in 3000 mya, its speed reduced to 14.4 hour’s long per earth day. Thus, the spinning speed of the earth was super fast prior to 4450 mya since it took 7 hour’s long to finish its full day. In such a high speed, all the substances, such as, sea water, would fly out of the sky. Or in other words, sea water should not be in existence in beginning of the evolution of the earth.

    As listed above also, earth’s orginal hydrogen and helium atmosphere would escape from the earth’s gravity in 4450 mya. Considering the environmental condition if the whole earth was filled with water, it is impossible for the earth to emit hydrogen and helium when the land was covered fully with water.

    Besides, the rapid spinning of the earth in 7 hour’s long prior to 4450 mya would cause sea water to fly out of the earth.

    The above show the contradiction between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth.


    ReplyDelete
  32. Was the earth formed through several destructions that were brought forth by volcanoes, meteorites and etc.? Does it differ from scriptural point of view?

    Scriptural verses about the creation of the earth:

    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

    Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”

    The phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, in Genesis 1:2, implies that the scripture supports that the earth was initially covered with water. As the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together…and let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies the appearance of land lately. Thus, the scripture supports that the land was not visible on the surface of the earth since it was covered with water.

    As the scripture mentions that the earth was covered with water, it is unlikely that volcanoes could be visible at that time since they should be under the sea water. As all the mountains were in the sea as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, how could the earth be under-attacked by volcanoes? As all the lands were in the sea water as mentioned in the scripture, how could the earth be under-attacked by meteorites? This is by virtue of meteorites would simply drop into the sea without any strong impact upon the land of the earth.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://www.universetoday.com/76509/how-was-the-earth-formed/ , in which contradiction has been found against the scripture:

    ‘This first eon in which the Earth existed is what is known as the Hadean period, named after the Greek word “Hades” (underworld) which refers to the condition of the planet at the time. During this time, the Earth’s surface was under a continuous bombardment by meteorites, and volcanism is believed to be severe due to the large heat flow and geothermal gradient. Outgassing and volcanic activity produced the primordial atmosphere. Condensing water vapor, augmented by ice delivered by comets, accumulated in the atmosphere and cooled the molten exterior of the planet to form a solid crust and produced the oceans. This period ended roughly 3.8 years ago with the onset of the Archean age, by which time, the Earth had cooled significantly and primordial life began to evolve.’

    ReplyDelete
  33. The doctrine of evolution contradicts the books of New Testament:

    Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings in the past, many of them would evolve into human beings at that time. There is no reason to assume that there would only be one man to be evolved from evolution if the environmental condition would turn up to be suitable for apes to evolve. If human beings flourished in the past were the result of the evolution of many apes, the origin of human beings could not be traced back to one man, i.e. Adam. The sin of Adam would not affect all human races if their forefathers could not trace back to him but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22 mention that all fall into sin by one man? Thus, the doctrine of evolution does contradict Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22.

    The following are the extracts:

    Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
    Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

    If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them?

    Was Eve formed from Adam?

    Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

    Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    If 1 Timothy 2:13 should be interpreted literally, why shouldn’t Genesis 2:21-23 be interpreted the same literally since both of them agree that Adam was formed prior to the existence of Eve?

    Besides, there should not be any reason for 1 Timothy 2:14 to mention the word, Adam, if this word in the book of Genesis should not be interpreted literally. As the word, Adam, is mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:14, the book of Genesis should be interpreted literally instead of treating it to be a non-existing event. The following is the extract:

    1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    If the first human beings were not made by God but evolved through nature, why should the word, made, be mentioned in Matthew 19:4?

    Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Both Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory support that this entire universe would take billion years to be formed and yet the scripture supports a short while.


    What did the scripture describe about the timeframe of God’s creation?

    Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (King James Version)
    Psalms 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
    Psalms 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
    Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

    The phrase, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, as mentioned above implies that the heavens were created at the time of His speech. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 implies that the creation of heaven was speedy so much so that the heaven was created at the time of His speech.

    Let’s link up Psalm 33:6 and 33:9 with Genesis 1:1, it would come to the conclusion that God should have created the heaven and the earth speedily in Genesis 1:1 since, at His speech, the heaven and the earth stood fast and they were created in the beginning of the first day.

    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Big Bang Theory supports the heavens have not been finished in its evolution since they support that they are still in construction currently that have led to current view of speedily expansion of this universe. Or in other words, Big Bang Theory supports the unceasing generation of new planets as well as the extension of the universe. The scripture supports otherwise since the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9. As the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9, it implies that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was on construction or on evolution, He had not finished His creation of heavens and that would have led to the current expansion of the universe as a result of His continuous work in construction of the heavens by expansion and forming more new planets. Nevertheless, the scripture supports that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech.

    The phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, in Psalms 33:6 implies whatever things that were in this heaven were created by His spoken words. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 refers the same that all the host of them, such as, stars and living creatures, were created instantaneously at the time of His speech.

    Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. When Genesis 1:3 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be the light stood fast on the first day.

    When Genesis 1:6 has been read with Psalms 33:7 and Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the division of water, such as, ocean or clouds or whatever, was created speedily at the time of His speech and this fell on the second day.

    Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    When Genesis 1:9 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the land appeared on earth speedily after His speech on the third day.

    Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

    When Genesis 1:11 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that all the plants were created instantaneously at the time when God has finished His speech on day three.

    Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The instantaneous creation of all living things should apply the same throughout Genesis 1 since the phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, is mentioned in Psalms 33:6. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was in construction or evolution, He did not have the power to create things instantaneously at the time of His speech but would take ample time, i.e. million or billion years to accomplish His creation.

    From the above explanations, it would come to conclusion that God had created the heavens and the earth within six days literally and they were done but Big Bang supports the heavens have not been finished their construction and that has led their assumption of the continuous expansion of the universe currently. If the heavens were not done in their creation, they need further construction work so as to expand. If the heavens were done in their creation in the beginning, current movement of galaxies away from the earth does not imply God has not finished His construction. Instead, it implies the movement of galaxies in which this universe could be created already in infinity.

    Is God omnipotent?

    Revelation 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
    Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
    Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
    Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

    ReplyDelete