Debunking of THE ABSURDITIES OF DOGMA by Lloyd Pye

Observe that I am only debunking the parts of the paper that makes any sense at all, there are parts that are not in here because of their extreme lack of reason. I really had nothing to argue against.
”Now another grand old ”certainty” hovers over history’s dustbin, and it seems only a matter of time before some new Einstein writes the few (or many) pages that will bring it down and relegate it to history. And, as was the case in 1905, every ”expert” in the world laughs heartily at any suggestion that their certainty could be struck down. Yet if facts are any yardstick–which should always be the case, but frequently isn’t–Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is moving towards extinction.”
OK, we start of with a lie right away.. Evolution has support by 97,5% of all scientists today, and is considered one of the strongest explanations in science history..
Of course it can be proven wrong, but we do not ASSUME it will be before it is.
Today, evolution is PRACTICALLY used when making Vaccines and GMO as well as computer codes, it is HIGHLY unlikely that something that is being practically used turns out to be completely false.
”Please note this: not everyone who challenges evolution is automatically a Creationist.”
No one says so. BUT, basically every person who challenges evolution lacks education. If we look at statistics, low IQ strongly correlates with the areas where people do not accept evolution.
”Recently a new group has entered the fray, much better educated than typical Creationists. This group has devised a theory called ”Intelligent Design”,”
This would be basically the same thing as creationism. Most ID-supporters still say that earth is 6000 years old, however, since this article seems to argue against that, I assume this article argues that the earth is older than that.
Point being however, that ID is based purely on assumptions.
Honest science starts at ZERO, we do not assume. ID starts with the assumption that there is a creator.
”which has a wealth of scientifically established facts on its side.”
No, it really does not, but lets see if this article fails to such facts forward just as all the other articles, lets give it the benefit of a doubt..
”The ID-ers, though, give away their Creationist roots by insisting that because life at its most basic level is so incredibly and irreducibly complex, it could never have simply ”come into being” as Darwinists insist.”
First of all, EVOLUTION is not connected to the origins of life, even if Darwin loosely speculated surrounding origins.
Also, that life is irreducibly complex is an CLAIM. For it to be valid, EVIDENCE is required. So far, this is just a claim, not evidence.
”Actually, the ”life somehow assembled itself out of organic molecules” dogma is every bit as absurd as the ”everything was created in six days” dogma,”
Both are counter intuitive. But the latter lacks all evidence, the first one we have many indications of, such as the Miller Urey experiment which created amino-acids, the building blocks of life.
There is a vast difference here. The first is sayin that complexity can be added on to chemicals, something we witness all the time. The latter say that a magical being (for which origins there is no explanation) created earth, something that no observations supports in any way. OR alternatively, that aliens did it. But we lack all evidence of those as well.
”which the ID-ers understand and exploit.”
Exploit, not understand.
”But they also suggest that everything came into existence at the hands of God (by whatever name) or ”by means of outside intervention”,”
For which there is no evidence. It is an untestable ASSUMPTION. But lets try it, for something to count as scientific, it needs to be falsifiable, what evidence would disprove this creator? If the answer is ”nothing”, we know it is not a scientific theory. The same goes for Aliens.
”Similarly, the very idea that humans might have been created by extraterrestrials(…)Know What has the widest array of facts on its side and has the best chance of being proved correct in the end.”
There are no facts supporting aliens putting us here, but, lets see what is being put forward later on, my mind is open.
”Since well before Charles Darwin was born, men of science knew full well that God did not create the Earth or anything else in the universe in six literal days. But to assert that publicly invited the same kind of censure that erupts today onto anyone who dares to challenge evolution openly. Dogma is dogma in any generation.”
Science is very open to criticism towards evolution, so it is not the same. BUT, science will always discriminate against ideas lacking EVIDENCE. TODAY, evolution is practically used and we have around 4 million pieces of evidence for it, so, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that it will be proven wrong.
”Darwin’s honeymoon with his scientific peers was relatively brief. It lasted only as long as they needed to understand that all he had really provided was the outline of a forest of an idea, one that only in broad terms seemed to account for life’s stunningly wide array. His forest lacked enough verifiable trees. ”
True, that says nothing about what we know about evolution today however.
”Even Darwin realized the data of his era did not provide clear-cut evidence that his theory was correct. Especially troubling was the absence of ”transitional species” in the fossil record.”
IT should be noted that today, we have an abundance of those, and DNA has also made them unnecessary. Here is a list of transitional fossils though:
Nautiloidea, Bactritida, Ammonoidea, Cephalopods, Pohlsepia, Proteroctopus, Vampyronassa, Palaeoctopus Rhyniognatha, Rhyniella, Archimylacris, Aphthoroblattina, Archaeolepis, Lepidopteran, Melittosphex, Sphecomyrma
Eophyllium, Protoclaviger, Attercopus, Eoplectreurys, Pikaia, Conodont, Haikouichthys, Arandaspis Birkenia, Guiyu, Chondrichthyes, Cladoselache, Dalpiazia, Cyclobatis, Andreolepis, Amphistium, Eobothus, Leptolepis, Anguillavus, Hippocampus sarmaticus, Hippocampus slovenicus, Nardovelifer, Eomola, Corydoras revelatus, Ruffoichthys, Palaeoperca, Trachicaranx, Histionotophorus, Eolactoria, Proaracana, Gazolaichthys, Psettopsis, Pasaichthys, Eozanclus, Cretatriacanthus, Nardoichthys, Protozeus, Archaeozeus, Cooyoo, Protriacanthus, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pederpes, Eryops, Gerobatrachus, Triadobatrachus, Prosalirus, Vieraella, Eocaecilia, Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Westlothiana,  Solenodonsaurus, Casineria, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Odontochelys, Proganochelys, Eileanchelys, Eupodophis, Najash, Anqingosaurus, Dallasaurus, Palaeosaniwa, Gangiguana, Cretaceogekko, Darwinopterus, Pterorhynchus, Proterosuchus, Marasuchus, Asilisaurus, Spondylosoma, Eoraptor, Pisanosaurus, Thecodontosaurus, Huayangosaurus, Stenopelix, Yinlong, Guanlong, Falcarius, Scelidosaurus, Probactrosaurus, Pelecanimimus, Juravenator, Pedopenna, Anchiornis, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Eoalulavis, Ichthyornis, Waimanu, Elornis, Colymboides, Mopsitta, Masillaraptor, Primapus, Protoclepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Biarmosuchus, Cynognathus, Thrinaxodon, Morganucodon, Yanoconodon, Kollikodon, Djarthia, Eritherium,Miacis,  Heteroprox, Eotragus,Protylopus, Hyrachyus,  Heptodon, Hesperocyon, Eurymylus, Onychonycteris, Purgatorius, Sivapithecus, Kenyapotamus, Eomanis, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus, Dorudon, Aetiocetus, Basilosaurus, Eurhinodelphis, Mammalodon, Pezosiren, Prorastomus, Protosiren, Eotheroides, Halitherium, Puijila, Potamotherium, Enaliarctos, Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus, Apidium, Aegyptopithecus, Proconsul, Pierolapithecus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis.
”Those were needed to prove that, over vast amounts of time, species did in fact gradually transform into other, ”higher” species.”
And the fossil record does, it is just that we have much stronger evidence than that nowadays.
”in every case those ”missing links” have been shown to be outright fakes and frauds.”
There has been frauds, but that does not remove the hundreds of real ones.
”An excellent account is found in Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000). But scientists are not deterred by such exposure of their shenanigans.”
Of course not! Just because one or two scientists are dishonest, says nothing about the rest of them or about science as a whole. Today, peer review has made faking evidence almost impossible.
”They feel justified because, they insist, not enough time has passed for them to find what they need in a grossly incomplete fossil record.”
That is simply not true, we DO NOT NEED a single fossil to prove evolution. We have enough evidence without them, for example, Biogeography, DNA, Homology, Embryology, and immunology.
Not only have we found what we need in the fossil record, we can predict where we will find something in the fossil record before we find it, the finding of tiktaalikis such an example.
”The truth is that some lengthy fossil timelines are missing”
Yes, which is absolutely no problem for evolution as a whole. At all. If we had ZERO fossils all together, evolution would still be strongly supported by, for example, DNA and Biogeography.
”Those have been thoroughly examined in the past 140-plus years, to no avail. In any other occupation, a 140-year-long trek up a blind alley would indicate a wrong approach has been taken. But not to scientists.”
Because scientists understand the process of the scientific method, other occupations, usually do not.
”Among those who study the processes of life on Earth, they must cope with the knowledge that a surprising number of species have no business being here.”
No examples of such species of course, I wonder why?
”In some cases, they can’t even be here.”
Such as?
”Yet they are, for better or worse, and those worst-case examples must be hidden or at least obscured from the general public.”
Such as?
”There are two basic forms of plants and animals: wild and domesticated. The wild ones far outnumber the domesticated ones, which may explain why vastly more research is done on the wild forms. But it could just as easily be that scientists shy away from the domesticated ones because the things they find when examining them are so far outside the accepted evolutionary paradigm.”
Such as? Which facts?
”Many have ”wild” predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated variety, but others–like many common vegetables–have no obvious precursors.”
SUCH AS???? Seems like this article is simply claiming things, but provides ZERO examples.
”But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains and cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc. is a profound mystery.”
No it is not! They turned that way because of selective breeding from the farmers! This is a well known fact of history.
”No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise to domesticated ones.”
Yes they can!
(Observe that the article has many sources, I am using Wiki as a reference to them, not as the actual source.)
”The emphasis here is on ”conclusively”.”
Ah, then this is nonsense, since science does not consider anything conclusive.
”Botanists have no trouble hypothesizing elaborate scenarios in which Neolithic (New Stone Age) farmers somehow figured out how to hybridize wild grasses, grains and cereals, not unlike Gregor Mendel when he cross-bred pea plants to figure out the mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple and so logical, almost no one outside scientific circles ever examines it closely.”
Well, The World Health Organisation does. A pretty big exception to this argument.
”Gregor Mendel never bred his pea plants to be anything other than pea plants. He created short ones, tall ones and different- colored ones, but they were always pea plants that produced peas.”
Ah, the usual argument that lifeforms can change a little bit, but not a lot.  That is sort of like saying that a man can walk a step, but not a mile. I mean, this argument actually says that lifeforms adapt to a certain point to their environment, but then say: ”Hey, lets stop adapting now”.
”On the other hand, those New Stone Age farmers who were fresh out of their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first time (as the ”official” scenario goes), somehow managed to transform the wild grasses, grains and cereals growing around them into their domesticated ”cousins”. Is that possible? Only through a course in miracles!”
Eh, no, trough the exact same process as we do it today. They selected the best plants and had them pass on their genes. I mean, it is not hard. What happens on the inside may be complicated, but to make it happen, we could train chimps for.
”Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large categories of miracles.”
No, it really does not. It requires a process that basically every uneducated farmer knows about and are actively using.
”The first was that the wild grasses and grains and cereals were useless to humans.”
According to the standards of today, not the standards of that time. Just 200 years ago, there was almost worldwide starvation, you ate what there was to eat. They still contain minerals and nutrition.
”The seeds and grains were maddeningly small, like pepper flakes or salt crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and handling capacity of human fingers.”
We had tools quite early on. We have found needles that are over 50 000 years of age..
”They were also hard, like tiny nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything edible.”
We could also boil and crush things quite early on. Or swallow it whole. It is still better than starving.
”Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing animals, not humans. ”
Humans ARE animals. If it can feed animals, it usually can feed humans as well. We do not eat grass because we do not like it, it is not because we cannot eat it.
”So wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough and nutritionally inappropriate for humans.”
This is a claim that is not backed up in any way. It is also unreasonable to think, that in times when food were not as abundant as today, humans wouldn’t lower their standards.
”They needed to be greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture and overhauled at the molecular level–which would be an imposing challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers.”
No, selective breeding really does not take a genius farmer. We have been doing it for many thousands of years. Dogs are a good example.
”Despite the seeming impossibility of meeting those daunting objectives, modern botanists are confident the first sodbusters had all they needed to do it: time and patience. Over hundreds of generations of selective crossbreeding, they consciously directed the genetic transformation of the few dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans.”
Sounds much more likely than ”it is impossible”, doesn’t it?
”And how did they do it?”
The same way we do it today, selective breeding.
”By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling and quadrupling the number of chromosomes in the wild varieties!”
Which is done by selective breeding. This article make it sound hard, but all it really involves is shaking a male-plant over a female-plant.
”Domestic wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor with seven chromosomes to their current 42–an expansion by a factor of six.”
By basically shaking plants over other plants based on which plant had the features they were looking for. Uneducated drug-dealers do this all the time when growing weed.

”But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the ”abominable mystery” of flowering plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to any form of plants that preceded them.”So these plants did not fossilize.. Nothing strange about that. Fossilization is very rare.

”It is as if, dare I say it?, they were brought to Earth by something akin to You Know What.”
No, missing fossils is not evidence of aliens nor god. They are most likely simply missing because fossilization is rare. Nothing missing is evidence of anything.
”If so, then it could well be that they were delivered with a built-in capacity to develop multiple chromosome sets, and somehow our Neolithic forebears cracked the codes for the ones most advantageous to humans.”
Sure, it could be that way, but there is absolutely no reason to suspect or assume so.
”However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen and picked up and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle.”
If shaking plants over each others are ”miracles” to the author, that will have to stand for him…
”Then they somehow had to ensure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes”
It most likely put a little food on their table from the starts, even when wild. Trough this process, they got more and more. The article seems to be arguing that the humans of that time had high class demands on their food.
”It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely, more absurd, scenario”
Well, both god and aliens would do the trick. They both seem more unlikely than humans shaking plants over each other.
”yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many ”six day” Creationists to shame. Why? ”
Well, because it is a natural explanation requiring very few assumptions (well, that humans of that time were able to shake plants). Unlike the idea that Aliens or god put us here.
”Because to confront its towering absurdity would force them to turn to You Know What for a more logical and plausible explanation.”
Since that would be a pure assumptions based only in speculation, that would require strong faith in either the supernatural or the extraterrestrial, no, that is not more plausible or logical.
Science makes one assumption, that humans of that time could shake plants.
The theories put forward here, requires the assumption of either god or aliens.
”To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e., genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of humans. So the equation is simple.”
This is just wrong. Natural selection can cause everything artificial selection can.
”Firstly, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent.
Secondly, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago.
Thirdly, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians.”
Well, no, they were actually about as smart as we are, just with less education. But they had as great a chance to figure this out as a modern day human. These ”Barbarians” built the pyramids.
”Fourthly, in the past 5,000 years, no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were ”created” by the earliest farmers all around the world.”
So? That argues only that they used good plants to breed from the start, most likely based on what could be eaten.
”Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model.”
It fits perfectly, it is basically a description of selective breeding, but, as usual, these articles tend to lie…
”Botanists know they have a serious problem here”
Then they would say so!!!
”but all they can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no other intervention–by God or You Know What–can be considered under any circumstances.”
Of course they can. When you people bring EVIDENCE that they exist. Not ARGUMENTS, EVIDENCE. A crashed UFO, a video of God creating, or some sort of evidence that natural laws had been broken. But as usual, the author have nothing.
”That unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not just botanists”
Of course, it IS what is known as the ”scientific method”. Of course all scientists are behind it. In other words, bring evidence, or be prepared to be rejected. There is absolutely no evidence of god or aliens, no UFO’s, no measurements of god, nothing inductive at all.
”to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in 1837 the Botanical Garden in St Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying, because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face.”
This is not strange. Many plants are hard to domesticate for a various of different reasons, many mushrooms are good examples. This means we still cannot do anything with selective breeding, but it in no way implies aliens or god. It also does not evolution is wrong.
”So, in addition to enlarging, softening and nutritionally altering the seeds and grains of dozens of wild plants, the earliest farmers also had to figure out how to finely adjust the brittleness of every plant’s glumes and rachises.”
OR, they choose plants that were not that bitter to begin with. OR, they ”played trough the pain”, that is, ate stuff that did not taste good. When we invented coffee, it supposedly tasted just awful.
”In short, there is not a snowball’s chance that this happened as botanists claim it did.”
Well, lets use logic here. We have this idea, that we know that humans can do, and we know humans have all materials needed to do so (what botanists say).
We have another idea, that has absolutely nothing supporting it, no evidence, some arguments, but, not evidence (what this article puts forward).
”As with plants, animal domestication followed a pattern of development that extended 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It also started in the Fertile Crescent, with the ”big four” of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, among other animals. Later, in the Far East, came ducks, chickens and water buffalo, among others. Later still, in the New World, came llamas and vicuna. This process was not simplified by expanding the number of chromosomes.”
The process is complicated to understand, but not to perform. Just make animals fuck.
”The only ”tools” available to Neolithic herdsmen were those available to farming kinsmen: time and patience. By the same crossbreeding techniques apparently utilized by farmers, wild animals were selectively bred for generation after generation until enough gradual modifications accumulated to create domesticated versions of wild ancestors.”
Exactly, something anyone could perform.
”As with plants, this process required anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years in each case”
We have bred Foxes to be very close to dogs in just 10-20 generations, So, no, this is just not true.
Early Canid Domestication: The Fox Farm Experiment, p.2, by Lyudmila N. Trut, Ph.D
”Once again, we face the problem of trying to imagine those first herdsmen with enough vision to imagine a ”final model”
Why? They could already eat the wild boar, why is it strange that they tried to breed it more tame??? The same goes for basically all animals we have selectively bred for. And no, it does not take thousands of years, big changes can happen quite quickly trough artificial selection.
”to start the breeding process during their own lifetimes and to have it carried out over centuries until the final model was achieved.”
20 generations is the time it took to make Foxes close to dogs by selecting the mst tame ones.
Early Canid Domestication: The Fox Farm Experiment, p.2, by Lyudmila N. Trut, Ph.D.,
”This was much trickier than simply figuring out which animals had a strong pack or herding instinct”
No, it really was not.
”However it was done, it wasn’t by crossbreeding.”
So you have no idea how it was done, but it was not done by this known process that we know can cause just this? OK!
”Entire suites of genes must be modified to change the physical characteristics of animals.”
Which is done by making them fuck. It is complicated on the inside, but not hard to make happen. Same goes with plants. It is hard to understand in on a genetic level, but it is not hard to shake plants over each other.
”(In an interesting counterpoint to wild and domesticated plants, domesticated animals are usually smaller than their wild progenitors.) But with animals, something more, something ineffable,  must be changed to alter their basic natures from wild to docile.”
We did just that with selective breeding in just 20 generations (around 20 years).
Early Canid Domestication: The Fox Farm Experiment, p.2, by Lyudmila N. Trut, Ph.D.
”To accomplish it remains beyond modern abilities”
Shaking plants is a ”modern ability”? Making animals fuck is a modern ability???
”so attributing such capacity to Neolithic humans is an insult to our intelligence.”
LOL, yeah, they only built the pyramids, but NO WAY they can shake plants and make animals fuck!
”There is something even more inexplicable about cheetahs. Genetic tests have been done on them, and the surprising result was that in the 50 specimens tested they were all, every one, genetically identical with each other!”
This is a LIE. Dr. Stephen J. O’Brien who performed the research said they were strangely CLOSE, not identical. He also EXPLAINS this: some time in the past cheetahs went through a population ”bottleneck,”
Dr. Stephen J. O’Brien of the National Cancer Institute.
”The problem of the cheetahs’ genetic uniformity is explained by something now known as the ”bottleneck effect”. What it presumes is that the wild cheetah population–which must have been as genetically diverse as its long history indicates–at some recent point in time went into a very steep population decline that left only a few breeding pairs alive. From that decimation until now, they have all shared the same restricted gene pool.”
Sounds more likely than ”Aliens did it”.
”Unfortunately, there is no record of any extinction events that would selectively remove cheetahs and leave every other big cat to develop its expected genetic variation.”
BUT, even if we do not know what caused it, it is still a better explanation that ”aliens” or ”god”. Since it requires very little assumptions, unlike aliens and god.
”So, as unlikely as it seems, the ”bottleneck” theory is accepted as another scientific gospel.”
Well, since the alternatives are much less likely. We have the option between ”unknown natural event that however is not that strange in itself”, or ”beings not supported by any evidence at all came here to experiment on them”.
”Here it is appropriate to remind scientists of Carl Sagan’s famous riposte when dealing with their reviled pseudoscience: ”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It seems apparent that Sagan learned that process in-house.”
God and Aliens would both be as extraordinary as can be. But, of course the author accepts these without any evidence at all. The bottleneck theory isn’t even an extraordinary claim!
”It also leads us, finally, to a discussion of humans, who are so genetically recent that we, too, have been forced into one of those ”bottleneck effects” that attempt to explain away the cheetah.”
Once again, it is the most likely explanation that requires the least number of assumptions and has the greatest amount of evidence.
”The geneticists gathered their courage and stepped into the line of fire, announcing that humans were not anywhere near the official age range of eight to five million years old. Humans were only about 200,000 years old. As expected, the howls of protest were deafening.”
Well, that is sort of a misunderstanding partly. There really is no clear line when one animal becomes another. But yes, around 200 000 years.. So what??
”Time and much more testing of mitochondrial DNA and male Y-chromosomes now make it beyond doubt that the geneticists were correct. And the paleontologists have come to accept it because geneticists were able to squeeze humans through the same kind of ”bottleneck effect” they used to try to ameliorate the mystery of cheetahs.”
Which is a working explanation for this phenomenon.
”By doing so, they left paleontologists still able to insist that humans evolved from primitive forebears walking upright on the savannas of Africa as long ago as five million years, but that between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago ”something” happened to destroy nearly all humans alive at the time, forcing them to reproduce from a small population of survivors.”
Sounds more likely than god or aliens.. It is really not that strange that a species go extinct or close to extinction, we know it happens, no assumptions. This is unlike god and aliens, that is something we do not know that it exists.
”That this ”something” remains wholly unknown is a given”
Well, there are quite a few things that could bring a species close to extinction. So, not that strange that we do not know exactly what.
”although Creationists wildly wave their hands like know-it-alls at the back of a classroom, desperate to suggest it was the Great Flood.”
Which we know for a fact that it was not, since we can see in the rock-layers that no such thing has happened in the last 6000 years.
”But because they refuse to move away from the biblical timeline of the event (in the range of 6,000 years ago), nobody can take them seriously.”
At least that is correct….
”Apart from disputes about the date and circumstances of our origin as a species, there are plenty of other problems with humans.”
That is actually not a problem. That there are holes in our knowledge does not take away the things we do know.
”Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm.”
Eh, no, we count as ”apes”. Not outside at all.
”Darwin himself made the observation that humans were surprisingly like domesticated animals. In fact, we are so unusual relative to other primates that it can be solidly argued that we do not belong on Earth at all”
Scientists do not argue that, no, they explain it by most humans loosing the gene causing that level of aggression, which is a theory with less assumptions than aliens or god.
”because we do not seem to have developed here.”
Eh, we have fossils going from ape to humans, we share 97% DNA with chimps, Chromosome 2, the Laryngeal nerve, and so on. We belong very well.
”We are taught that, by every scientific measure, humans are primates very closely related to all other primates, especially chimpanzees and gorillas.”
Yes, the evidence for that is MASSIVE. Mainly Chromosome 2, DNA, and the Laryngeal nerve.
”This is so ingrained in our psyches that it seems futile even to examine it, much less to challenge it. But we will.”
Yes, scientists do that all the time. That is how we have gathered 4 million pieces of evidence for evolution. Here are 270 000 well documented ones:
”Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones.”
Which would fit perfect with evolution considering our much less active lifestyle.
”For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every ”pre-human” ancestor through to Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones do not.”
Our bones are not exact copies. But for example, the hands are extremely similar, so is the skull, the feet, and so on. Homology is considered strong evidence of human evolution.
”Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates.”
Which once again fits perfectly with evolution considering our migration to less forest covered areas and our less active lifestyle.

”Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow, getting ”better” made us much, much weaker.”Evolution is not about getting better, it is about getting more adapted to the environment one lives in. Humans, because of our intellect and our environment, did not need as strong muscles and bones.

”Skin. Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth.”
Our skin is perfectly adapted. Black skin can stand the strong sun of Africa, and white skin only NATURALLY exist where the sun is too weak for normal skin to take in its D-vitamins.
”It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved.”
We started out as black. White skin is an ADAPTION to the weak sun of the north. Black people living, for example, in Sweden, experience a lack of D-vitamins during the winter.
”All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.”
Because we are adapted to live in areas with much weaker sun, like Sweden.
”Body Hair. Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body-hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest hair is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our back.”
Which fits perfectly with humans ”standing up” early in our evolution. Switching the focus of the sun-light from the back, to the front.
”Fat. Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound’s edges lie flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called ”contracture”. In humans, the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to the propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air, it is minimal at best.”
Soooo? We all agree we are not identical to chimps. So what is the point?
”Skulls. The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made, apart from the general parts being the same.”
Which is EXACTLY what ”similarity” means. So, you are saying they are actually similar, since it has the same general parts. Other, further away animals, do not..
”Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless.”
Luckily we have DNA, showing us we are EXTREMELY alike.
”Brains. The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say ”improved” or ”superior” is unfair and not germane, because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce.)”
Our brain has the same parts as a monkey brain basically, so, this is just wrong.
”Locomotion. The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal; primates are quadrupeds.”
Yes, a merging between 2 chromosomes, resulting in chromosome 2, caused humans to stand up. Also, apes can stand on two…
”That says more than enough.”
Yes, but it does not say that we are not related or do not belong.
”Speech. Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primate throats. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position”
So, a 4 cm drop, is a COMPLETE change to this author?
”Sex. Primate females have oestrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human females have no oestrous cycle in the primate sense.”
Around 2 weeks after menstruation, you cannot get a human female pregnant because there is no egg in there! So, no, wrong again.
”They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial headache!)”
Apes have sex for fun as well, and also masturbates. So.. If you believed that argued against our relations, the fact that you are completely wrong should speak for evolution.
”Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes!”
This is one of the absolutely strongest pieces of evidence for human relation to apes. If we have one less, and are related, then, chromosomes must have merged. Meaning, that one human chromosome, would look like 2 ape-chromosomes stuck together, and there it is, chromosome 2 in humans!
Also, there seem to be a misunderstanding that more chromosomes means more advanced, which is not true.
”This begs the question of how we could lose two full chromosomes”
One, and it happened because they merged, and we have conclusive evidence of this happening (we have found the merged chromosome in humans).
”–which represents a lot of DNA–”
It represent a gene duplication (which is observed to happen many times) with some point mutations on the copied gene. Not strange at all.
”and in the process become so much better. Nothing about it makes logical sense. ”
It all does. It is just that you need education of some kind to understand that…
”Genetic Disorders. As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups as well as humans. But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are quickly weeded out in the wild. Often, parents or others in a group will do the job swiftly and surely, so wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human gene pool in the first place, much less how they remain so widespread.”
IT is explained by human society. For a long time, we have not killed the less fit. Resulting in more errors, since the most fit, are not the only people who gets to mate.
”Genetic Relatedness. A favorite Darwinist statistic is that the total genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from chimpanzees by only 1% and from gorillas by 2%. This makes it seem as if evolution is indeed correct and that humans and primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they don’t stress is that 1% of the human genome’s three billion base pairs is 30 million base pairs”
Yes, but that is not a problem. Every single human have around 150 of them that are unique. So, in just 10 generations, we have 1500. In a 1000 generations, 150 000.  10 000 generations, 1,5 millions. And this is just within one family. If they mate with someone that is not, that would bring in several million new mutations. So, 30 million is really nothing. It is not even a little strange, and the difference is minimal.
”and to any You Know What that can adroitly manipulate genes, 30 million base pairs can easily add up to a tremendous amount of difference.”
Yes, 1-3%… AS you said. 30 million base-pairs is just 1% difference. That is why evolution takes such time…

”To delve deeper into these fascinating mysteries, check The Scars of Evolution by Elaine Morgan (Oxford University Press, 1990). Her work is remarkable. And for a more in-depth discussion of the mysteries within our genes and those of domesticated plants and animals, see Everything You Know Is Wrong.”Elaine Morgan concludes, at the end of her book: ”This study provide abundant evidence of humanity’s history. Like all species on this planet, we are not unique special creations. We are one end result of a long process of mutation sieved through selection, a countless series of adaptive compromises and tradeoffs.”

So yes, read that book if you want references proving this extremely bias and crappy essay wrong.
”When all of the above is taken together”
We have a HUGE number of misunderstandings surrounding evolution…
”the inexplicable puzzles presented by domesticated plants, domesticated animals and humans–it is clear that Darwin cannot explain it, modern scientists cannot explain it, not Creationists nor Intelligent Design proponents. None of them can explain it, because it is not explainable in only Earthbound terms.”
Well, it is to everyone with some education, but, sure, if you are a dirt farmer who only knows evolution by what his mother taught him, then sure, it cannot be explained.
Observe, that this entire essay has only put forward speculations and arguments, not one single piece of evidence that proves its stance correct, so far at least, but we’re getting close to the end.
”We will not answer these questions with any degree of satisfaction until our scientists open their minds and squelch their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not, in fact, know much about their own backyard.”
Every scientist admits this. Evolution however, we do understand.
”Until that happens, the truth will remain obscured.”
What truth? This paper has put forward no evidence for any stance at all, and has put forward no evidence against evolution.
”My personal opinion”
Really does not matter….
”which is based on a great deal of independent research in a wide range of disciplines relating to human origins”
Seems like it is rather based on not doing any research at all.
is that ultimately Charles Darwin will be best known for his observation that humans are essentially like domesticated animals.”
That is not really a great discovery. It is quite obvious. It also has several promising explanations, such as genes and intelligence.
”I believe that what Darwin observed with his own eyes and research is the truth, and that modern scientists would see it as clearly as he did if only they had the motivation or the courage to seek it out. But for now, they don’t, so, until then, we can only poke and prod at them in the hope of some day getting them to notice our complaints and address them. In order to poke and prod successfully, more people have to be alerted to the fact that another scientific fraud is being perpetrated.”
Still no evidence….
”Future editions of Icons of Evolution will discuss the current era when scientists ridiculed, ignored or simply refused to deal with a small mountain of direct, compelling evidence that outside intervention has clearly been at work in the genes of domesticated plants, animals and humans.”
This essay puts forward no evidence for such a claim. So, it is based on absolutely nothing.
”All that will be required for the truth to come out is for a few ”insiders” to break ranks with their brainwashed peers.”
No, all it requires is EVIDENCE, from ANYONE!

2 reaktioner på ”Debunking of THE ABSURDITIES OF DOGMA by Lloyd Pye

  1. ”Humans ARE animals”…Only that animals have no culture, neither can ponder over its existence you fucking darwinian moron.


    1. ”Animal” is referred to as ”A member of the biological group ”animalia”. Humans are a part of this group.

      Some animals are smarter than other animals, that does not make them more or less animal.



Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s