Aftermath – Evolution

If ever there were a controversy in the world of science, it is in the subject of evolution. Even the name creates angry reaction in some scientists when it is called The Theory of Evolution.

In each and every field of science, there is a strong standard of procedure known as The Scientific Process. It is the one standard procedure common to all sciences wherein research is necessary to establish a scientific law. These stages constitute a scientific order of procedure utilized to establish that scientific law.

Let’s take a totally unrelated field to that of this book as an example: ESP, or Extra-Sensory Perception. For years scientists evaded this field of research in fear of besmirching their scientific escutcheons. Others took up the cudgel, expending years of effort in experimental research, trying to prove or disprove whether such a phenomenon exists. Not one of them formed a hypothesis to try to lay down how it works, if it works. All they did was to formulate tests to be performed to indicate that the phenomenon did or did not exist. That a hypothesis does not make. Forming a hypothesis is the first step in The Scientific Process.

I put together a hypothesis, formulating how the communication system works, utilizing the known forces of nature, plus a means for testing the hypothesis to determine whether it was valid. It worked in spades. It worked with everyone on whom we tried the test, man, woman, adult and child; and I’m speaking of quantitative testing here, with one hundred percent success in every case.

The Scientific Process requires progressing from hypothesis to theory to law. Having proven my hypothesis, that meant that there now existed a valid theory concerning ESP. The next step to determine whether the theory is a law was to determine the predictability of ESP based on testing the theory as to its predictability. This is an extremely difficult factor to test in the field of human experience, because human events are not immutable. If you feel that an event is going to happen to you which you do not want to happen, you can change circumstances to prevent its happening. Then how could you prove that it would have happened if you had not changed circumstances? If you had not changed circumstances and it did happen, how could you prove that you knew it was going to happen? Predictability was extremely difficult as a test.

I won’t go into the complex details, but we were able to prove predictability under controlled circumstances. That meant that we definitely had a firm law on our hands. I took that law and formulated a course that could be taught; UCLA welcomed my course into their Experimental College, where I taught it to 140 students with extreme success for four quarters. Those 140 students were 140 new students each quarter for four quarters, making it 560 students I had taught. I entered this task with the haunting doubt in my mind as to whether I could teach students how to perform ESP in large groups, even in subgroups doing their own testing in twenty groups of seven each. I was amazed to find that there was no communication interference between groups; each group was independently performing its own communications. It was a further test of predictability, even though I had serious doubts as to whether it would succeed. I had previously taught ESP, only one-on-one. The law was strengthened. By the way, the course was very popular, with along waiting list, I was told by the administrator.

By all scientific measurements, the “Theory of Evolution” is but a rank, raw hypothesis, based on two counts. Let’s look at those counts.

First, it is assumed that evolution of the species is a gradual process of improvement. If so, why do we see as universal the gradual degradation of the species? Why does performance of the pancreas diminish on a percentage basis as the years go by? Why has diabetes become so prevalent in just three to four generations? Why have intelligence levels lowered so markedly; why has the percentage of students not wanting to learn increased so markedly? Why has crime increased and empathy decreased so markedly? Is that improvement? Why has teeth structure so deteriorated in so many places of the world? Why is it that so few have a natural resistance to tooth decay? Why is it that so many have no resistance to tooth decay? The military, in scientific curiosity, established a research program involving those in the military who had absolute resistance to tooth decay. There were not many who qualified to Participate in the program. Why? Nobody knows. Those running the tests and analyses never did find out how and why those who were immune were immune.

Gradual improvement of the species cannot be measured by bone structure alone, combined with assumptions. We’re surrounded by gradual degradation.

The second point is that nowhere do we find any analysis of evolution by mutation. Mutation is a sudden change, usually from one generation to the next, sometimes extensive change sufficient to completely hide the preceding generation; sometimes small enough to allow a reasonable analysis. Let’s look at how this comes about.

During a cataclysm, the turbulence surrounding our planet is sufficient to completely disrupt the high altitudes’ structure which shields the Earth from the deadly cosmic rays.

Very few cosmic rays normally penetrate that shield. During a cataclysm, when the shield is totally broken up, cosmic rays gain complete access to the Earth, bombarding it in plethora. Of the very, very few who survive, some have been struck by cosmic rays; some have not. It is impossible to determine the ratio.

Georges Cuvier was the first to study fossil bones in light of the environment in which they were found. Some were found in one sedimentary strata; some in another; and some in another, and so on and so on. He was also the discoverer of the relative structure of bones of different species, and the definition of an entire skeleton based on comparative anatomy which he himself had discovered and established. What a pioneer! He could be given a piece of a bone, or a tooth, and tell you exactly which species it belonged to.

Cuvier noted that the species found in one strata seemed to be totally wiped out, suddenly, by the deposit of the strata in which they were found, and the next upper strata would contain new species with no antecedents whatsoever. Without realizing it, he had discovered the mutations of species caused by cataclysms. Those species – including humans – which and who had had their gonads bombarded by cosmic rays, had a genetic change wrought in the sperms or eggs they were carrying, and/or in the parent cells in their gonads. Consequently, a random result occurred: their offspring varied randomly in the degree of mutation, but nevertheless mutation was universal in the offspring of parents, one or both of whom had had their eggs and/or sperms bombarded by cosmic rays. The offspring resulting from mutated parent cells was and is totally unpredictable.

If we utilize the modern mathematical science of applied mathematics, it tells us that it is impossible to have upgrading species through mutation. It is equally impossible to have an even crossover in quality from normal parents to mutated offspring. The sure bet is that mutational offspring represent the most sudden degradation of the genes to varying, random degrees.

If we again use applied mathematics, that science tells us that it is utterly impossible that the human being is a result of millions, perhaps billions of years of upgrading evolution from a single cell. It has to be that the human being is a result of a design and resulting productions of two variations of that design: male and female.

You can name any source as the creator of that design and producer of the first models, male and female. If you were to ask me, I could tell you the exact steps which had to be undertaken to produce the living products. I could tell you how the design produced both male and female – a product of sheer genius. Do you know that we are that close to being able to create male and female ourselves? Some day I’ll probably be writing and making speeches about it. Earlier I stated: “nowhere do we find any analysis of evolution by mutation.” This is not exact.

Anthropologists are now finding that certain species of birds are descendants of dinosaurs. If true, it is a startling revelation of the veracity of mutational descendance, as that relationship could not have been through gradual evolution, be it upgrading (which is impossible) or downgrading.

Proof that man (and woman) are the closest we have to the original design after untold thousands of years of cataclysms and mutations is through his abstract functions, plus a few concrete functions. Speech and the capability of learning and maintaining an extensive vocabulary are good examples of concrete functions. Abstract functions include three-dimensional visualization, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and analytical reasoning. And of course we must include empathy. Even some species of humans are totally lacking in empathy. In any case, humans have unique and more complete brains than any other species.

Remember that, especially in the years preceding and following a cataclysm, those without empathy turn criminal first. If there is any doubt in your mind about that, just read the newspapers. Watch TV news. Watch TV crime documentary programs. Think it over. Then draw your own conclusions.