EVOLUTION: A Monkey’s Perspective
(Author Unknown)
“Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree
Discussing things as they are said to be.
Said one to the others: “Now listen, you two
There’s a rumor around that can’t be true,
That man descended from our noble race.
The very idea is a great disgrace.
No monkey has ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies, and ruined her life.
And you’ve never known a mother monk,
To pass her babies on to another,
Till they scarcely knew who is their mother.
Here’s another thing a monkey won’t do:
Go out at night and get on a stew,
Or use a gun or club or knife,
To take some other monkey’s life.
Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss,
But brother, he didn’t descend from us.”
INTRODUCTION
Life is a mystery, so grand, so vast.
Origins are hidden, deep in the past.
Worn out, eroded,
Are they
Hopelessly unsuited?
Nothing is more fantastic,
Is anything more farfetched
Than slates of fossil stone
Which reality once etched?
Any philosophy of diet leads, typically, to a philosophy of human origins. It seems reasonable that the diet humanity originated on, should be the diet that best suits us or at least point us in the correct direction. From research and experience we see that primitive diets do actually work because they are simpler, more natural and the body has less confusion to contend with. Primitive peoples have more robust jaws and more beautiful teeth, which is reflective of their superior diet. But even primitive diets do have their limits. They contain cooked foods and animal foods that will only allow consciousness to reach a certain level within a certain parameter of positive energy.
Some argue that humans have actually adapted through evolution to cooked foods and animal foods, yet the thousands of gastro-intestinal and related diseases (which do not afflict natural creatures eating their natural diet) are positive proof that humanity’s food choices have not been optimal.
This lesson challenges many of the false assumptions underlying the theory of evolution. It exposes some of the dangers of “raw-food evolutionary diets” and “paleolithic diets” and describes that these diets, like all diets, have their faults. With the theory of evolution proved faulty, all dietary systems based upon it must be reevaluated.
This lesson demonstrates that the form, function and food choices of every plant and animal are not primarily determined by evolution or adaptation over time. But that each organism has a form, function and food category ordained by design. When we humans follow our dietary design, the results are extraordinary.
This lesson also demonstrates concepts in lateral thinking and may be particularly interesting for those of a “success consciousness” who are always looking for unique intellectual angles and ways to think things differently. Understanding this lesson is not entirely necessary to succeed with The Sunfood Diet. Those who find the information here to be less than essential may move forward to Lesson 10: Detoxification.
Those who choose to study this lesson will find that many scientists and researchers have shattered the glass towers of evolution where hypotheses are based on hypotheses and fact and fiction are mingled in an ever-deeper confusion … the evidence of which I present.
Objectivity?
The challenge presented to all explorers of the microcosm and macrocosm is not to confuse the observed with the mind of the observer, not to construct a picture of external reality, which is only a mirror of the thinker. Can this challenge be overcome?
No one could accurately describe what happened on planet Earth yesterday, let alone what happened 100,000 years ago! History books and media consist of what is believed to have happened in the past, not of what actually happened in the past.
The whole field of darwinism/evolution is based on the critical assumption that life is shaped by the outer environment. This generated the sociology of “the environment” as determining the character of living beings. And yet, in a pure sense, what is life? Life is the unfolding of the inner potential. Potential is fulfilled by action, just as a seed, with its inward certainty of bursting life and future fruit generation, is fulfilled by action through water, soil and Sun. The environment does not determine the inner potential — it can only help or hinder its expression. The physical world of Nature is in reality the materialization of the inner spiritual potential of all living things. The inner world creates the outer world (Lesson 1: The Principle Of Life Transformation).
“AS THE CREATION MYTH OF SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM, DARWINISM
PLAYS AN INDISPENSABLE IDEOLOGICAL ROLE IN THE WAR
AGAINST FUNDAMENTALISM. FOR THAT REASON, THE SCIENTIFIC
ORGANIZATIONS ARE DEVOTED TO PROTECTING DARWINISM
THAN TESTING IT, AND THE RULES OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION
HAVE BEEN SHAPED TO HELP THEM SUCCEED.”
— Phillip Johnson, Darwin On Trial
Today’s one-sided, fatalistic science includes philosophical deductions that are not science and are not supported empirically. The scientific observation of the world is simply empirical study. However, today’s science implicitly contains philosophical deductions (loaded with ideas about the ultimate existential meaning of the universe, such as notions of how life began, what life is, etc.) not supported by empirical proof.
For example, implicit in darwinism is the “common ancestor” idea, which sounds great to a materialistic mind, but is not supported by the fossil record. The common ancestor idea contains science (quantifiable similarities between species) and the philosophical deduction that they share a common ancestor — which has not empirically been shown.
Utilitarianism?
There is no evidence that the Earth’s biological history or “evolution” (as it has been termed) is a mechanical process of increasing fitness and utility over time.
What of “survival of the fittest”? The philosopher Nietzsche pointed out that survival of the fittest happens, but is meaningless most of the time, because the vast majority of organisms do not fight, do not kill for food and do not compete for territory in such a way that cause competitors to die out.
The utilitarian aspect of the darwinian theory is quite subjective. The utility of an “adaptation” is relative to the use sought to be made of it. A species without feathers has no need of feathers. A feather which gradually evolves would be a positive disadvantage over the “millions of years” necessary to perfect the feather. Furthermore, how did this process start? For an “adaptation” to be utile, it must be ready; while it is being prepared, it is inutile. But if it is inutile, it is not darwinian, for darwinism says evolution is utilitarian.
Can evolution explain every aspect of every food? Observe the stunning color, energy, chemistry and power revealed in this Kirlian photo of aloe vera.
Why is it that the “lower” forms (e.g. the horseshoe crab), those which are simpler (less fit?) have not died out, and have not yielded to the principle of evolution? They remain in the same form they have had for vast expanses of the fossil record. Why do they not “evolve” into something “higher?”
The Fossil Record
The most conclusive refutation of evolution is furnished by paleontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil records can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution/adaptation, and there ought to be “transition types,” not particularly of one species or another. Instead, what we find, in the actual fossil record, are genus forms (a genus is a collection of related organisms usually including several species) that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definite shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer or finally disappear, while quite different forms arise again.
The mathematician Mandelbrot in his casebook The Fractal Geometry of Nature (about Chaos theory) describes two types of quantity variations recognizable in Nature:
1. The Joseph Effect. This means persistence: despite an underlying randomness, the longer a quantity grouping has experienced a condition, the likelier it is to experience more of that same condition. The Joseph Effect means that a certain genus of species, despite erratic conditions, may persist through countless eons, essentially unchanged.
2. The Noah Effect. This means discontinuity: when a quantity changes, it can change arbitrarily fast. Quantities can change instantaneously. They do not pass through all intervening points on their way from one point to another. The Noah Effect means that a quantum of species may instantaneously alter form and function.
Consider how Mandelbrot’s observations are mirrored by Stephen Gould (quoted from Darwin On Trial), developer of the evolutionary “punctuated equilibrium” theory which attempts to explain away the embarrassing fact that the fossil record is devoid of transition types:
“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ ”
All that we see about us impels us to the conviction that again and again profound and extremely sudden changes take place in the forms of living plants and animals. These changes are of a chaotic, cosmic or divine origin and may be beyond human understanding.
Similarly, all active beings (including those reading this now) have striven towards their fulfillment by turning points or “epochs” in their lives — not by gradual evolution. Think about the events of your own life and decide which is a better description: a series of significant turning points or gradual evolution? The origins of the Earth, of life, of the free-moving animals, are such turning points or “epochs” of change.
Quantum physics is telling us things do not change slowly over time — they make quantum leaps. We jump from one level of experience to another.
Evolutionists never demonstrate what a smooth transition is — they never define it. A transition of macro-form should be demonstrated somewhere in a long sequence, say 50, 30, or at least 10 successive fossils in transition. Yet, with all the billions of fossils on Earth, no one has met this simple criteria for a fossil sequence.
We also do not find any genetic mistakes (one-shot mutations which failed) in the fossil record which is impossible if random mutation through natural selection (trial and error) is true.
By far the most abundant fossils in the world are the 14 types of ammonites — little shelled snail-like ocean species which, as far as we can tell, have existed essentially since life began on Earth. Literally billions of these fossils have been found, but never have there been discovered any transition types, or smooth transitions, between any of these 14 types.
The first treatise that described that the basic forms of plants and animals did not evolve step-by-step, but were suddenly there, was given by Hugo de Vries in his work Mutation Theory in 1886. He described that we can clearly see (through scientific/utility analysis) how the “impressed living form” works itself out in the individual samples, but we cannot see how the “die was cut” for each whole genus. We cannot see how the genus appeared. Origins remain hidden from us.
We cannot ascertain how the Homo genus (Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo neanderthalis, archaic Homo sapien, Cro-Magnon, Homo sapien, Homo sapien sapien) appeared, yet it was suddenly there in the fossil record.
Evolutionists continue to argue the tired line that humans smoothly transitioned from one form to another, and assume modern Homo sapiens arose merely 100,000 to 200,000 years ago (based on the present questionable dating system). In December 1997, Discover magazine reported the findings of a Spanish team working in Gran Dolina, Spain who uncovered an 800,000 year-old skull with remarkably modern features. The discoverer, Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, stated, “It is so surprising we must rethink human evolution to fit that face.” Discover magazine stated: “The Gran Dolina face is 800,000 years old and yet distinctively ours. It is almost that of a modern human.”
The evidence is showing and will continue to show that all the Homo forms have existed together for thousands — or millions — of years without the gradual evolution through common ancestry concept.
The Homo life-form, like every other, originated in a sudden appearance or mutation (the Germans have the great word wandlung meaning “instant transformation”) of which the “when,” “how” and “why” remains a secret. There exists somewhere in the recesses of time a sharp frontier on the hither side of which we see Homo as a completely formed type, endowed with a certain bodily structure, walk and posture that has not materially altered up to the present day. All the ape-like remains (Australopithecus, etc.) and the hominid remains (Homo) found on Earth are still distinctly different, and bridging that gap to find a missing link remains elusive. No missing link can be found. This is because no missing link exists.
The fossil record is actually a liability that must be explained away by evolutionists. Pre-darwinian paleontologists were right on when they cited the lack of intermediaries as a conclusive reason for rejecting biological evolution initially. Stephen Gould has described “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record” as “the trade secret of paleontology.” Darwin wrote: “Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional and linking forms.”
Think about it logically, if there were gradual evolution, in the adaptation sense of the word, there could not be specific animal classes, but only a chaos of living singular forms left over from some “struggle for existence.” Darwin posed this question to himself: “… why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” Rupert Sheldrake described the individuality of species as determined by individual chreodes — each species sits in a chreode or valley that creative Nature settles into amongst the pathway of form outcomes.
Essentially, the species we know today are all stable.
“DARWINISTS ASSUME THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN,
SAY, BATS AND WHALES IS SIMILAR TO THAT BETWEEN SIBLINGS
AND COUSINS IN HUMAN FAMILIES. POSSIBLY IT IS,
THE PROPOSITION IS NOT SELF-EVIDENT … WE OBSERVE DIRECTLY
THAT APPLES FALL WHEN DROPPED, BUT WE DO NOT OBSERVE
A COMMON ANCESTOR FOR MODERN APES AND HUMANS.
WHAT WE DO OBSERVE IS THAT APES AND HUMANS ARE
PHYSICALLY AND BIOCHEMICALLY MORE LIKE EACH OTHER THAN
THEY ARE LIKE RABBITS, SNAKES OR TREES. THE APE-LIKE
COMMON ANCESTOR IS A HYPOTHESIS IN A THEORY, WHICH PURPORTS TO
EXPLAIN HOW THESE GREATER AND LESSER SIMILARITIES CAME
ABOUT. THE THEORY IS PLAUSIBLE, ESPECIALLY TO A PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALIST,
BUT IT MAY NONETHELESS BE FALSE. THE TRUE
EXPLANATION FOR NATURAL RELATIONSHIPS MAY BE SOMETHING MUCH
MORE MYSTERIOUS.” — Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial
Based on the fossil record, the general picture of plant and animal history is a burst of general body forms followed by stasis or extinction. We may hypothesize that relationships between these forms come from common ancestors, or from ancestors which were transformed by some means other than the accumulation of small mutations or from some process altogether beyond the scope of human understanding at this point.
Neo-darwinism (the present-day evolution philosophy) has chosen the common ancestor idea as the key to understanding the relationship between the great classes of living beings. This is a philosophical deduction based on materialist misconceptions and is not a fact. If neo-darwinists truly wanted to be scientific, they would have to define the common ancestry idea as an empirical fact rather than as a “logical” deduction from material classifications of species.
Primates And Diet
Omnivorous feeding patterns among primates have been used to justify omnivorous eating by humans through evolutionary theories (if chimps eat animal foods and humans evolved from chimps, then humans should eat animal foods). These comparisons are reasonable; but could also be specious, not only because the common ancestry idea is faulty, but because of the objectivity problem.
Who could know or even guess at the great mystery and majesty that was the ancient Earth?
In his phenomenal book, L’Homme, Le Singe, Et Le Paradis (Humans, Primates, and Paradise), Frenchman Albert Mosseri cites professor Henry Bailey Stevens’ insightful observations:
(Translation): “In his study, Pyramid of Life, professor Henry Bailey Stevens writes: ‘Short term effects appear in tropical monkeys, where humans deranged their natural habitat. Civilization, with its growing demand for monkeys for lab experiments, completely changed their behavior. We must keep that in mind during interpretations. For example, we never saw in the past a monkey kill for food. Now in 1960 Jane Goodall Lawick went on an expedition to live a year with the chimpanzees in Tanzania. The chimpanzees got used to her presence and lost all apprehension. During this period, they had also the occasion to observe her own behavior and diet. They are gifted imitators, so they were able to admire human ingenuity. When she announced that some young chimpanzees in the group killed 4 monkeys, one antelope, and a pig, we saluted this as a scientific contribution. Alas, it was only a deviation due to what our civilization reflected on the chimpanzees.’ ”
The point here is instructive. Many chimpanzee groups — especially the bonobo chimps (the most genetically similar to humans) — do not engage in hunting behavior. It is equally as likely as any other explanation that the chimpanzees of Gombe (Jane Goodall’s research group) and other chimp groups learned their much-publicized killing and meat-eating behavior from humans; probably originally deriving such practices from local human tribes with whom they lived amongst for thousands of years.
Among the more remote anthropoid apes, such as orangutans, we find no hunting behavior. Studies of orangutans have revealed they occasionally eat insects or bird’s eggs, but do so initially in their youth out of curiosity and, as adults, due to hunger or specific nutrient needs (i.e. vitamin B12).
Amongst omnivorous eating patterns of some primates we find the folivorous gorilla. No one who looks into a gorilla’s eyes — intelligent, gentle, vulnerable — can remain unchanged. Gorillas are a shining example of the raw-plant diet amongst a primate in Nature.
Dr. George Schaller, in his incredible book Year Of The Gorilla describes: “I never saw gorillas eat animal matter in the wild — no birds, eggs, insects, mice, or other creatures — even though they had the opportunity to do so on occasion. Once a group passed over a dead duiker without handling the fresh remains, and another time a group nested beneath an olive pigeon nest without disturbing a single egg.” Gorillas have been observed to remove insects from vegetation before eating it.
Diet And Evolution?
At its inception, each new genus form is associated with a definite energy and a specific physiological design. Its functioning environment, physical form, social life, physical life (i.e. how to spin a web) and food/fuel choice are pre-determined within a narrow variable range. These are not subject to change and do not (actually cannot) adapt beyond a certain threshold without causing imbalance or illness.
The Homo genus has a specific biological design for food/fuel, as do all other genus forms.
Those who espouse evolutionary diets have as their base tenet the assumption that we have adapted to a specific diet through millennia of certain feeding behaviors. These behaviors vary widely and can never be precisely known. They can only be guessed at, as both frugivorous plant eating and omnivorous feeding teeth-striation patterns have been discovered amongst various fossils in the Homo genus.
To a degree humans have adapted. Enzymatic adjustments or mutations have occurred amongst the different human races to help accommodate foreign foods. For example, Caucasians have the ability to enzymatically breakdown alcohol, whereas Native Americans do not have the enzymes to do so easily (Dr. Bert Vallee and other researchers at Harvard Medical School have isolated 15 different types of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) liver enzymes. They discovered that the number and variety of these enzymes vary between individuals and ethnic groups. The number and variety of these “isoenzymes” appear to be genetically controlled).
In spite of enzymatic mutations, amongst all the races, no “macroevolutionary” change has occurred to the human digestive organs (the teeth have not sharpened, the bowels have not de-sulcified and shortened, the liver has not enlarged), even in spite of humanity’s recent history of chaotic dietary patterns.
Different races and blood types display patterns of enzyme mutations allowing certain groups to metabolize certain foods, while other groups lack those enzymes. This understanding underlies the blood-type theory. This theory describes that our blood type (of which there are actually more than four different varieties: O, A, B, AB and many other groups and subgroups) exerts a powerful influence on the foods which digest and assimilate well for us. The theory states that Blood type O is for omnivore (an eater of both plant and animal foods).
I am a blood type O and have had no problem eating a 100% raw diet since January 1995, and plant foods only since January 1993. Brian Clement, director of the Hippocrates Health Institute, is a blood type O and has been a vegetarian for over 40 years. Dr. Gabriel Cousens is a blood type O and has been a raw-food vegetarian for over 20 years. There are hundreds of other examples I could site.
In my own experience in counseling people on diet, I have found the suggestions of what foods are agreeable and disagreeable based on one’s blood type to be often applicable to cooked foods and rarely applicable to raw foods and raw-food eaters. I have also found that people of blood type A tend to burn sugars (carbohydrates) more slowly and can generally handle more sugars in their diet. People of blood type O tend to burn sugar more rapidly and do better eating less carbohydrates and more fats and/or protein for energy. But these are not rules.
Obviously different blood groups, races, and ethnic groups share different affinities for natural foods (e.g. northern Europeans tend to like green apples, southern Europeans tend to like red apples). Each group has different enzymatic capabilities to digest their traditional cooked staples. So there is a partial truth in the blood-type theory; however, the blood-type theory makes no distinction between raw or cooked foods, nor does it address blood type O’s who thrive on a vegetarian, vegan or raw-food diet — indicating a flaw in its reasoning.
If we look closely, we see that eating animal foods (meat, milk, eggs), or ingesting alcohol, requires enzyme mutations present in some groups, and absent in others. This means that these foods were added later in our history on the planet and were not originally present. All the enzymes originally present are still with all of us now and are most amenable to digesting simple plant matter.
As mentioned in Lesson 7: The Sunfood Diet, Lesson 8: Food And Karma and Appendix A, the structure and function of humanity’s dull canines and grinding teeth, the pouchy shape of the lips and cheeks, the elongated digestive canal, the sensitive nature of the sensory organs, the method of nourishment for the young, the pattern of children’s development, mental set, emotional feelings, as well as the cause and cure of disease and unhappiness, all demonstrate that humans are biologically and predominantly plant eaters. Humans descend from the natural state into carnivorism when foods, especially fats, are drawn from animal sources (more on this in Lesson 11: The Secret Revealed).
Carnivore theorists believe that because an animal can chew something up, swallow it, and live long enough to tell others about it, then that animal is an omnivore. For example, the herbivorous cow has been fed the flesh of other dead cows, mixed in with its feed, for at least a century by the cattle industry. Cows still continue to survive on such food. Yet, an omnivorist would argue that the cow is no longer an herbivore, but is now an omnivore, because it can eat something aside from common grass. Almost any animal, can eat just about any type of so-called “food,” and still live, but that does not mean it has “evolutionarily adapted to,” or is designed for, that food.
Every natural species can tolerate a vast amount of improper food (fuel). That is why dogs, mice, rats, cats, birds, etc. can tolerate large volumes of denatured, dead and improper food even though they have never seen these types of foods in their genetic history. The cells and tissues composing the anatomy of these organisms always display an amazing degree of resilience, elasticity and buoyancy. However, every living organism can “adapt” itself up to a certain point only, and beyond that point follows illness and degenerative conditions. And every “adaptation” along the way occurs at the expense of a repression of the body’s desire to express the inner potential into the outer — each “adaptation” has its price. Professor Hilton Hotema termed this the Law of Vital Adjustment, and later specified it as really the Law of Vital Reduction. This is how the body builds up a tolerance to food and air pollution: the body’s eliminative and higher developmental functions must first be weakened before it will submit to inimical foods and environments.
The most amazing thing about human life is that we can discover our form, function, and food choice design and choose to follow it, therefore actualizing the highest potential of our species. That is the purpose of this book. We will discover the specifics of our natural food choice design in Lesson 11: The Secret Revealed.
Natural Selection And The Species Boundary
Returning back to the discussion of evolution, we find that natural selection (the primary agent of species creation under the evolutionary theory) is a tautology — it can be made to explain anything. For example, evolutionists claim plant-mimicry among insects is beneficial and will be selected for, but they also claim that warning-warrior colorations, such as insect stripes, are beneficial and will be selected for. Yet if both these hypotheses are true, any kind of coloration on the insect will have some beneficial value and will be selected for. Natural selection cannot make unique predictions, but is used retrospectively to explain everything.
Natural selection, as observed in operation, permits variations only within species boundaries. It operates also to preserve those boundaries. The theory that natural selection has the creative power needed to fuel the changes necessary to turn one species into another is unsupported by the empirical scientific evidence.
The claim of “evolution in action” is simply the observation of local fluctuations of genotypes within a single species. To be more specific, we know certain circumstances favor drug-resistant bacteria as opposed to normal bacteria, or big-beaked birds as opposed to little-beaked birds, or black-peppered moths as opposed to white-peppered moths. In such circumstances, the population of normal bacteria, small-beaked birds and white-peppered gypsy moths may become reduced as long as circumstances adverse to them prevail, but they do not disappear. As circumstances change, their portion of the genome may again come to predominate, and the population can fluctuate back.
How far can a new species vary? Consider this fact: no one has yet bred a new species artificially. Species have inherent biological limits. The hybridization of the beet vegetable is instructive. Wild beets have a sugar content of less than 4%. Hybrids were developed from wild strains which increased the sugar yield to 17%. However, biologists have never been able to get beets of a higher than 17% yield. By breeding high-yield varieties together they often get throw-backs to the wild stocks. 17% is a barrier.
Nature has to economize in one area in order to expand in another area. This is a basic law of compensation which limits variability. This opposes evolutionary theory which suggests each organism has an infinite genetic plasticity which, coupled with mutation and natural selection, can stretch a bacteria into a human given enough time.
The Random Mutation Theory
Let’s think logically: natural selection implies the selection of certain traits from a larger pool of traits within a group. Thus, over time, it is a mechanism which reduces biological diversity. Obviously, the diverse natural world itself represents the opposite. The random mutation theory has to provide the favorable characteristics to create diversity. Micromutations, we are told, stem from random mistakes in copying the commands of the DNA’s genetic code. To say that such chance errors could construct even a single complex, healthy and functioning organ, such as a stomach or an intestinal tract, is like saying a dictionary could result from a print shop explosion.
Just how the unique bone structure of birds could have evolved gradually through natural selection and mutation from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to imagine and even more difficult to prove. All micromutations have to appear simultaneously and work together at every step along the way. For instance, the spine and bone structure are absolutely vital to every moment of the organism’s existence — even the slightest mistake or variance leads to death.
One eminent scientist of the mid-twentieth century, who concluded the theory of evolution had fallen apart, was the geneticist Professor Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley. In his book, Darwin On Trial, Phillip Johnson describes Goldschmidt’s now-famous challenge to the neo-darwinists, listing a series of complex structures, from mammalian hair to hemoglobin, which he concluded could not have been produced by the accumulation and selection of small mutations. Goldschmidt described how the idea that an accumulation of micromutations could lead to new organs and species is a mathematical impossibility.
Beyond Natural Selection And Random Mutation
“A very large yet undefined extension may safely be given to the direct and indirect results of natural selection; but I now admit … that in the earlier editions of my Origin of Species I probably attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival of the fittest … I had not formerly sufficiently considered the existence of many structures which appear to be, as far as we can judge, neither beneficial nor injurious, and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work.” — Charles Darwin, The Descent Of Man
We know that close contact with other living beings unites patterns of thought, emotion, biological appetites and impulses. And that people do resemble their pets and vice versa. Biological theories have not been able to explain the “Power of Association” scientifically.
Natural selection is the most famous mechanism that can cause biological adjustments in organisms, but it may not be the most important element. Other factors that cause changes in species include: directed mutation and/or geographic morphism.
Experiments have shown bacteria can mutate in beneficial ways, due to directed mutation, without natural selection. Consider the results of the following experiments conducted on E. Coli bacteria. Researchers Dr. John Cairns and Dr. Barry Hall independent of each other confirmed that when bacteria are deprived of certain nutrients, such as the amino acids tryptophan and cysteine, they are able to, under hostile conditions, give rise to offspring which can internally synthesize these nutrients. This is a directed mutation. (See Cairns, J., “The origin of mutants,” Nature, 335:142-145 and Hall, B., “Spontaneous point mutations that occur more often when advantageous than when neutral,” Genetics, 126:5-16, September 1990). If simple bacteria can synthesize their own nutrients, imagine what humans can do!
Environmental factors directly affect the structure of living organisms — this phenomena is termed “geographic morphism.” Within each landscape, the forms of plants and animals have local characteristics that can be, and often are, picked up by transplants of plant and animal strains and stocks from other landscapes. For example, in the 19th century it was discovered that for any given inhabited area of the world there was an average cephalic index (the ratio of the greatest breadth of the head to its length from front to back) of the human population. More important, it was learned, through measurements on immigrants to America from all over Europe, and on their American-born offspring, that this cephalic index corresponds to the geographical location, and immediately makes itself manifest in the new generation. Thus, long-headed Sephardic Jewish people and short-headed Ashkenazi Jewish people, after arriving in America, produced offspring with a specifically American cephalic index.
From intuitive observation, it is apparent that the landscape exerts an influence on the plant and animal life within its bounds. The mechanism of this influence is beyond our scientific understanding at this time. The source of it, however, we know: it is the cosmic unity of the totality of things, a unity that shows itself in the rhythmic and cyclic movement of Nature.
Embryology
If evolution were correct, then we should find that the embryonic development of animals would replay a synopsis of the whole evolutionary picture. Organisms should start out in life as relatively similar, and then form their differing features later.
In reality, the embryonic patterns represent a mysterious puzzle for the evolutionary theory. Although it is true that different vertebrate types pass through an embryonic stage at which they resemble one another, they develop to this stage very differently. Each vertebrate egg, upon fertilization, undergoes cell divisions and movements characteristic of its class: fish follow one pattern, amphibians another, reptiles another, birds another and mammals yet another.
Embryologists have known for many decades now that vertebrate embryos develop along different lines which converge in appearance midway through the process, then diverge again until they finally develop — in totally different ways — similar organs, limbs and bones.
Darwin thought embryology was a guide to evolutionary genealogy. If this were so, then embryology is telling us vertebrates have multiple origins and did not inherit similar characteristics from a common ancestor.
Are Species Real?
Up until now, I have used the word “species” in its traditional sense (the way neo-darwinists have defined it for decades). The traditional definition of “species” connotes organisms which can breed together. There are major problems with the definition of the word “species.” Pleomorphic organisms and all animals and plants which reproduce asexually fall out of the species categorization. This presents an enormous population of living things on Earth and an enormous problem for neo-darwinists. How do we classify such organisms? Another problem with this definition is that extinct populations of fossils do not breed, so we do not know whether they could breed together and do in fact represent one or more species. This also can never be tested. And what of living populations that are genetically identical but cannot breed together, such as varieties of the fruit fly? And what of an offspring of a horse and a donkey (a mule) that is fertile, even though most are not? A bull can be crossed with a bison to produce fertile offspring, and this also violates the definition.
Even defining a species by chromosomal similarities may prove impossible. Italian researchers have discovered a strain of mice with only 16 chromosomes instead of 20. But Silvia Garagna, a zoologist from the University of Pavia involved in the research, has stated: “We have not found a new species. We have just found a new chromosomal race within the mouse species.” (The San Diego Union Tribune, “Of Mice And Scientists …”, Section E-1, December 17, 1996.)
When the definition of “species” is thrown up to the wind, then statements such as “all the species of Galapagos finch have evolved from common ancestors” loses any value.
Claims of new species forming within the present day continue to be asserted by neo-darwinists. In all of the examples they offer, however, what we actually find are two types of situations.
The first type involves blurring the definition of what they have defined a species as and replacing it with a definition so poorly defined that any sub-species variation can be claimed as “speciation.” The Galapagos finches are an excellent example of sub-species variations claimed to be different species. Jonathan Weiner, in his Pulitzer-prize winning book The Beak Of The Finch, describes researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant’s observations that different finch “species” do breed together and produce fertile offspring.
The second type involves chance mutations where the chromosomes suddenly double (as in plants), or change in some other way, but these mutations have never been shown to reproduce themselves into a new species.
The fact that a “species” cannot be precisely defined disassembles the entire darwinian classification system which relies on categorization.
The Fallacy Of Radio-Isotope Dating
The vertebrate sequence
A reflection in rock
Obscured by the ages,
A frozen time clock.
But how many years,
Into the din,
Dates each fossil
We’re examining?
More than anything else, evolutionists do not like having their dating system challenged. The present dating systems for organic material and rocks are so ingrained into the present scientific consciousness in the fields of biology, anthropology, paleontology, etc., that to question their veracity is bound to raise emotions. As strange as it may sound, radioactive dating — the most crucial leg of the neo-darwinian support structure — is perhaps the least scientific and the most flawed of all evolutionary postulates.
Richard Milton, in his phenomenal book, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, outlines the history of present-day dating systems and their flaws, some of which I have outlined in the section below, along with my own research:
In the 1940s, American chemist Willard Libby developed the radiocarbon method of dating organic materials. His system was based on carbon 14, a radioactive isotope of carbon 12. Carbon 14 begins to decay as soon as it is created at a half-life rate of 5,700 years. When a plant or animal dies, it stops taking in carbon 14 from the land and atmosphere, so the amount of carbon 14 in its body begins to decay, while the ordinary carbon 12 remains the same. All other still-living organisms, argued Libby, still retain the same proportion of carbon 14 to carbon 12. This proportion does not change as long as the organism is still alive, thus it can be determined, based on the proportion of carbon 14 to carbon 12, how long ago the organism died.
Willard Libby made the crucial assumption that the total amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has remained constant over time.
Studies by researchers Richard Lingenfelter, Hans Suess, V. Switzer, and Melvin Cook (done independently) have determined the proportion of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in the atmosphere is increasing (see Lingenfelter, R., “Production of C-14 by cosmic ray neutrons” Review of Geophysics, Feb. 1963, 1:51; Suess, H., “Secular variations in the Cosmic-ray produced carbon 14 in the atmosphere and their interpretations” Journal of Geophysical Research, Dec. 1965, 70: 5947; Switzer, V., “Radioactive dating and low level counting” Science, Aug. 1967, 157:726; Cook, M., “Do radiological clocks need repair?” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Oct. 1968, 5:70). Melvin Cook found, at present, carbon 14 is increasing 38% faster than it is decaying. The Earth’s atmosphere is accumulating carbon 14.
If carbon 14 levels are increasing, the amount of carbon 14 the animal had before it died will be lower than assumed. This assumption will cause test samples to appear older than they actually are, causing inaccuracies. Also, the carbon-dating system is not usable after 57,000 years because after ten half-lives, very little carbon 14 is left in the sample to examine.
Researcher Melvin Cook has also demonstrated that uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods for dating inorganic rocks are also severely flawed. Cook’s findings have been supported by other reputable scientists in the peer-reviewed literature. Funkhouser and Naughton demonstrated the flaws in uranium-lead methods by dating volcanic material known to have been formed in a Hawaiian volcanic eruption in 1801. The dating system showed these new materials to be three billion years old (see Funkhouser, J., Naughton, J. Journal of Geophysical Research, July 1968, 73: 4606). In another related study, Professor McDougall of Australian National University found, through potassium-argon dating, ages of up to 465,000 years for rocks known to be less than 1,000 years old (see Nature, 20 March 1980, p. 230-232, 12 November 1981, p. 123-124).
Most people do not realize that the four-billion-year-age estimate of the Earth derives exclusively from methods of assessing radioactive uranium decay (and the decay of similar elements). No other dating system presents an age of the Earth even in the ballpark of four billion years.
The uranium-dating system works by tracking lead isotopes formed from the decay of radioactive uranium 238. Uranium 238 decays into lead 206, which is distinct from common lead 204. The half-life of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years; thus, a sample of uranium 238 should become half lead 206 in 4.5 billion years. From this relation, rocks are dated. The amount of uranium 238 and lead 206 in the sample are compared. The problem with this dating system is that lead 206 can be formed by other processes. While uranium 238 is decaying, it is also releasing neutrons which bombard surrounding particles, including common lead 204. By absorbing neutrons, common lead 204 can be converted into lead 206.
Uranium 238 and other isotopes are not metals in their natural form, but appear as water-soluble uranium oxide which can wash from one place to another, thereby enriching some sites and depleting others, throwing off the dating accuracy yet again.
The problem with radioactive dating is there is no independent means (outside of the radioactivity paradigm) of verifying the ages of samples. Most rock samples, when dated, present a range of dates that appear as a bell curve. Along the curve some ages are too old and some are too young, and ages are chosen subjectively often because they “feel right” within the context. Consider the McDougall study (cited in Nature, also see and compare Nature, 18 April, 1970; 20 September, 1974; 4 December, 1975; 28 October, 1976), where the “scatter” of dates conducted by different groups of researchers ranged from 0.52 million to 17.5 million years ago for a sample of KBS Tuff rock material used to date the age of the Lake Turkana Man fossils. The dates for rock samples taken from the KBS Tuff were all over the place. The date of 2.6 million years arrived at for the KBS Tuff sample was eventually chosen, to end the whole debate, because it was apparently “reasonable” to the scientists involved.
Here visible in bamboo is the cycloid spiral space curve that animates all living things and causes them to levitate against gravity.
The assumptions behind radioactive dating cannot be applied to a system that is not understood within the unrestricted world of physics in Nature. When we pull out the dating system and really understand that the entire methodology for dating the Earth, the fossils, and even the Universe itself is flawed, then we may, perhaps for the first time, appreciate the incredible mystery of Life. The Earth may have been here for trillions of years, millions of years, or thousands of years — the truth is … nobody knows.
Raw “Evolutionary” Diets or Paleolithic Diets:
Do They Work In Practice?
If humans are truly carnivorous, then, in the natural state (naked, with no tools or traps, and no fire), humans should be capable of, and enjoy, capturing and eating wild game and fish, worms and insects of all types, as well as eggs. Such raw animal-food diets are promoted without any mention of restrictions or parameters of quantity. “Instinktive eating” is one such philosophy as promoted by the staunch evolutionist Frenchman, Guy Claude-Burger.
Eating raw animal flesh is better than cooked animal flesh for a time and people will feel better until the body begins to accumulate the stronger, unmitigated death energy (karma) of the animals in the raw state. This is why primitive tribes usually ate mostly cooked animal foods and did so with respect and understanding of the cycle of karma, life and death.
I have seen people on high-concentration, raw animal-food diets over the long term and have seen lives significantly altered by the negative energy of such foods. I personally believe, based on my experience, that eating a diet consisting of 10% or more raw animal flesh leads to or exacerbates major physical, psycho-social issues including: addictive behavior, emotional imbalances, body odor, cancer, immobility, infertility, and parasite challenges. It is interesting to note that wild chimpanzees, who include animal food in their diet (mostly insects), do not exceed 10% animal food in their nutrition.
Unchecked levels of raw animal-food consumption seems to be associated with a poverty consciousness — a subconscious belief that killing, lack and hardship are laws of life. Repeatedly thinking about demineralized food and deficiency is another facet of a poverty mentality. Thoughts of lack create lack. Thoughts of abundance create abundance. Feelings of fear along with thoughts of lack, deficiency, and doubt lead one to create a reality and diet where those thoughts thrive.
A few people opt for raw-animal food because they sincerely need nutrients, others opt for this approach due to food addictions and an unwillingness to detoxify. They want benefits without detoxification, but do not understand that something for nothing disobeys the karmic law. They replace cooked-food stimulation with another kind — raw-animal food. Eating raw flesh as a significant part of the diet can lead to food obsession. Poignantly, this is also true with a high tree nut or fruit dietary intake.
Typically, on a high raw-animal diet, people become so unbalanced, confused, and filled with negative energy, they (intelligently and intuitively) go back to cooked food to buffer the karmic energy of eating excessive levels of animal foods.
Those who stick with raw-animal foods in high concentrations long enough can get into some troublesome areas. The case of Guy Claude-Burger’s wife, Nicole, is instructive. From the Internet I downloaded the following:
“… there was a letter from Montrame which explained (their version) of the reasons and the course of events of Mrs. Burger’s death. The letter explained that both Burgers acquired the habit of eating lots of meat during an experimental phase, after they and their friends discovered the beneficial effects of raw meats, particularly for people who suffered from cancers. After some time Mr. Burger developed one small cancer-like melanoma on his legs, which was removed by surgery. He stopped eating meat for some time, then. After some time, Mrs. Burger, who already was in menopause, did get her period again. The reason was cancer. But Mrs. Burger was addicted and couldn’t break the habit of eating meat, she didn’t believe in her husband’s new theory that meat can also cause cancer. She ate it every day and after Orkos stopped delivering it to her, she ordered through other people. One has to know, that she had lots of bad stress during that time. She worked a lot, regularly sleeping only 3 hours per day and her husband was in jail at that time, because of charges of working as a doctor without admission. (These were dropped much later). So Mrs. Burger became sicker and sicker and lost a lot of weight. And then she resorted to conventional medicine. She was treated with chemotherapy and artificial food for gaining weight, containing milk products. Probably caused by that she got pneumonia, from which she recovered when she started Instinkto again, but it was too late, she died some days later. This kind of addiction can happen with all kinds of natural foods, but especially easy with meat and other proteins …”
Eating a meat-based diet, especially a raw-meat diet, can also lead to parasite susceptibility despite claims that parasites in flesh foods are not dangerous (and this is promoted by certain paleo-nutritionists!). Once one is infested with parasites, a “parasite consciousness” is likely to arise. I was once talking to a long-term raw-foodist on the phone and he had a most insightful observation. He said to me, “David … parasites rule the Earth. They have infected the entire population and are bending it towards ever more chaotic dietary patterns so that their consciousness may dominate the world.”
The mythology of the “wonderfully healthy meat-eating Eskimo” has been shattered in the past twenty years. Eskimos have the highest suicide rate of any ethnic group on Earth. Typically, they suffer from such severe teeth problems that the pain may be a primary factor that eventually drives them to suicide.
Raw fish is not a safe choice as we move into the future. I have repeatedly seen how raw-fish diets lead to parasite-worm infections and/or mercury poisoning. This is because animals accumulate and concentrate toxicity from the environment and no places are left on Earth that are entirely devoid of pollution. It is especially true with fish, as they live in and constantly filter impure water leaving toxins in their tissues. Because toxicity is channeled to the liver of animals, fish liver oil is likely to contain large doses of PCB’s. We must keep in mind that, either we filter out what we are allowing into our bodies, or we ourselves will become a filter.
I knew of a case involving a long-time raw animal-food eater in Hawaii, who was eating up to 5 pounds (2.2 kilograms) of fish a week, discovered he had a mercury level of 16, where 1.5 is considered a dangerously high level. If you or someone you know has eaten large quantities of fish, raw or cooked, please consider testing for mercury.
The truth is that flesh-eating is a habit with karmic consequences and is probably best avoided if possible or in the alternative done safely, rarely and respectfully. Even though human behavior has been more like scavengers eating everything in sight, we appeared on this planet as raw eaters with a specific food design. We are not designed to eat large amounts of raw (or cooked) animal foods and that is why these diets can be inappropriate.
Does biting into a raw fish with its slime, scales and watching eye sound appetizing? Of course not. Does eating bugs out of a garden sound enticing? It would not be a first choice. No one has the propensity to go outside of their home at 3:00 am and chase a rabbit down, kill it, rip it apart and chew it up with their teeth into small digestible pieces. Raw animal foods cannot be eaten in good conscience and in a natural way (without tools) and this is strong evidence in favor of vegetarianism.
Conclusion
As I have demonstrated, radio-isotope dating is inaccurate, “smooth” transitions are riddled with irreconcilable gaps, natural selection cannot form a new species, the fossil record contradicts the darwinian theory, there are no missing links, etc. These truths indicate that the theory of evolution is flawed and predicated on wrong assumptions.
Along with the elimination of evolutionary philosophies sold to us as facts, collapses a major philosophical basis for humanity’s indulgent, disrespectful omnivorous and cooked-food diet. Are we supposed to understand the theory of evolution to know how to eat? Such a proposition is absurd on its face. Eating naturally is an intuitive knowledge, a natural propensity. It is easier to sneak up on lettuce than a rabbit. Raw plant food stands as the obvious primary food of human beings.
We arrived on this spinning planet with a design to subsist mostly on raw plant food — and that is still our design now. This fact is proven by the extraordinary results, one will achieve by following The Sunfood Diet program.
1 For more information scientifically and specifically discounting the theory of evolution, please read Forbidden Archeology by Michael Cremo.
2 Exercise your skills in contrary thinking. Write in your journal 10 statements that peers told you were true. These could be statements you still believe are true. After writing them all down, directly below them, reverse the statement and review it. For example, let’s say you heard: “Money doesn’t grow on trees.” You would write down: “Money does grow on trees” and review it. Ask yourself questions: Which statement is true? Is one more true than the other? What are the short- and long-term consequences of believing these statements? (By the way, cacao beans (raw chocolate) were used as money by the Olmecs, Mayans and Aztecs — and they grow on trees.)
EVOLUTION: A MONKEY’S PERSPECTIVE REVISITED
One day the monkeys played
Amongst the trees,
When their fellow appeared
From a canopy of leaves.
“There is a rumor about,
Have you heard?
It’s being touted
As the new holy word:
That humans are descended
From our noble tribe.
The arrogance of this
I can hardly describe.
Our joy and laughing,
Our natural bliss,
Is something the humans
Seem to totally miss.
Our zest for life,
Our radiant glow
Is this something
They can ever know?
They claim they’ve found
The secret design,
But the simple word: “species”
They cannot define.
Where are the transitions
The claims between form?
Nature is ever-changing
Yet stasis is the norm.
Guesses upon guesses
And the ages of rocks,
A blind watchmaker run
By atomic time clocks.
The theory is so boring
And mechanically untrue,
Science can’t pollute the Earth
And understand it too!”
The monkey paused,
To stretch and yawn
Took a deep breath,
And continued on:
“Trust in faith and
Common sense
Have no place
In their science.
They don’t understand
The reality they picture
Is but a reflection —
Of the thinker.
Divine and regal,
Is the grand-ancient world
The creation riddle
Cannot be unfurled.
Out there is a different place,
Older, greater, deeper by far
Than the twinkling of
The farthest star.
The harm to the Earth
Might be absolved,
But her mysteries
Will never be solved.”
They chewed on fruits
In the soft, warm breeze.
As a waft of smoke
Caused a monkey to sneeze.
“Here they encroach
On our Paradise Found
They’ll slash and burn this
Place — to the ground.
They don’t think
Beyond the fringe
Of the tiny world
They’re living in.
They cut then build
Another sharp fence,
When all they need is
Water, leaves … silence.
Materialist obsessions,
The Survival of the fit
Has turned the Earth
Into a fire pit.
And it becomes clear,
The deeper one delves …
That they’ve brought this
Misery, upon themselves.
Their race is declining
Into brutal passions,
Of which this theory
Is the latest of fashions.
The Earth is weary.
Of misdirection
This theory dies first
By natural selection.”
Into the distance
The raindrops poured
Pattering the leaves
Between each word.
“Fancy theories,
Can never express,
The ancient dreams
Of this old forest.
Those splendid secrets
The poetry of facts.
Shouldn’t lead them to worry
But simply relax.”
The wise monkey grinned
As he declined some food
And all ears turned
To hear him conclude:
“Humans are something,
A different breed,
And compared to them
We have all we need.
You’ll never see a monkey
Be hostile or rude,
You’ll never catch a monkey
Cooking her food.
So to answer the charge
Of this latest fuss,
Tell them humans have descended alright
But they haven’t descended from us.”
