ALL ARE APE-MEN FORGERIES?

Pithecanthropus alalus was a fraud.
Eoanthropus dawsoni was a fraud.
Hesperopithecus harold cookii was a fraud.
Ota Benga as an ape-man was a fraud.
Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba was a fraud.
All ape-men are frauds.

AN OBJECTIVE ANCESTRY TEST FOR FOSSIL BONES 8

© JOSEPH MASTROPAOLO, PH.D.* 2002 [*PROFESSOR EMERITUS, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG
BEACH; ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH]

ABSTRACT


By the look of the curve of a fossil toe bone and the slant of its joint surface, recent
reports concluded that it was from an ancestor of apes and humans, Ardipithecus ramidus
kadabba, that walked on two legs. The question arose as to whether there might be a simple
method yielding objective evidence to bridge the gap between those scant subjective
determinations and that far-reaching conclusion. Accordingly, an objective, valid, reliable
and calibrated correlational method of substantiating that conclusion was devised and
successfully tested. For monkey (baboon), ape (chimpanzee) and human, similar were the
ape and monkey, dissimilar were the human and monkey and most dissimilar were the ape
and human. The monkey and ape similarities to human bone were less than for an
anatomically different bone. The fossil toe bone had scant similarity to humans,
dissimilarity to monkeys and most dissimilarity to apes with the dissimilarities to monkeys
and apes like those for an anatomically different bone. The results of this objective ancestry
test contradicted the conclusion that Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba was an ancestor of apes
and humans that walked on two legs. Instead, these objective analyses provided evidence
that apes are similar to monkeys, but monkeys and apes have no similarity to humans.

INTRODUCTION

Amongst other fossils, Haile-Salassie reported a left, fourth digit, phalanx 1, toe bone
31.9 mm long designated Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, AME-VP-1/71, 5.2 Myr. He reported:

   AME-VP-1/71 shows a mosaic of features shared with both apes
and A. afarensis. The proximal pedal phalanges of A. afarensis are
unique in combining both strong phalangeal curvature (similar to
apes) with a dorsally canted proximal joint surface (similar to later
hominids). The dorsal orientation of this surface in AME-VP-1/71
may therefore constitute important evidence of a unique pedal
morphology in this specimen similar to that in Hadar.1

The interpretation given by Robinson was, “This toe bone (AME-VP-1/71) proves the creature
walked on two legs. . . . How apes became human. Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. What a new
discovery tells scientists about how our oldest ancestors stood on two legs and made an
evolutionary leap.” His artist’s conception on the cover of Time was an upright chimpanzee-like
creature with blue eyes.2 Except for the blue eyes, it bore a striking resemblance to the Piltdown
forgery of 1912 – 1952.3

It is not clear that length was the only objective measurement made on AME-VP-1/71,
but if it was, then the question arose as to whether there might be a simple method to yield
objective evidence to bridge the gap between those scant subjective determinations and that farreaching
conclusion.

Accordingly, an atlas of primate gross anatomy by Swindler and Wood was obtained to
scan the renderings of the comparable bone in baboons, chimpanzees and humans.4 If AME-VP-
1/71 tested intermediate between chimpanzees and humans and resembled least baboons, then
the conclusions of Haile-Salassie and Robinson would have objective support. The conceptual
design of this test was to objectively determine for each bone a central axis and the deviations
from it to the lateral and medial bone borders at decile distances from the proximal to the distal
end. For each bone in the same order, these deviations in tenths of millimeters would be
tabulated and correlated. A high correlation between two bones would indicate a high degree of
similarity.

METHODS

For a plantar or dorsal view, from proximal to distal, a straight sideline was drawn
joining the lateral-proximal extreme of the bone with the lateral-distal extreme. The same was
done for the medial extremes. See A and B of Figure 1.


Figure 1. The toe bone of Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. Left foot, digit 4, phalanx 1, plantar view,
shown with sidelines A and B, proximal and distal lines D and E, central axis C, and perpendicular
distances from the central axis to the bone borders laterally and medially at each decile of its length, 0.1
to 0.9.

To determine the central axis, a straight line was drawn perpendicular to the medial
sideline such that it provided a tangent to the proximal extreme of the bone then crossed the
lateral sideline. See D of Figure 1. The same was done for the distal extreme of the bone. See E
of Figure 1. Between A and B, D and E were divided in half to determine the course of the
central axis of the bone. See C of Figure 1.

From the bone’s proximal to distal extremes, the central axis was divided into deciles.
See 0.1 to 0.9 of Figure 1.

From the central axis at each decile, the perpendicular distance to the lateral border of the
bone was measured in tenths of millimeters. The same was determined to the medial border of
the bone.

For each bone, for each decile proximal to distal, all the lateral distances were tabulated
in order followed by all the medial distances. These scores approximated the bone contours and
when treated by the correlational r  they took on the attributes of proportionalities thereby
permitting comparisons regardless of image magnification. The correlational r expressed the
mathematical magnitude of the similarity from 0.0, no similarity, to 1.0, perfect in similarity.
This test was validated by determining the correlation of the bone with itself at a different
magnification. This test should be independent of image magnification and the correlation should
approach 1.0.

This test also was validated by determining the correlation of the same bone in two
different atlases. Given atlases with perfect fidelity, this test ought to be independent of the atlas
employed and the correlation ought to approach 1.0.

The criterion for similarity was that a correlation exceed the correlation between the
phalanx 1 toe bone and its anatomical neighbor, the phalanx 2 toe bone. A correlation equal to or
less than that was considered as dissimilar as a bone for an anatomically neighboring bone. A
correlation equal to or less than the one between the phalanx 1 and phalanx 3 toe bones was
considered as grossly dissimilar as a bone for an anatomical neighbor two bones away. See Figure 2.

 


Figure 2.Phalanx 1, 2 and 3 from Spalteholz, 1900, p. 146. The correlation between phalanx 1
and 2 was 0.657 and between 1 and 3 it was 0.271. Any correlation amongst AME-VP-1/71 bone
and human, monkey, or ape phalanx 1 toe bones equal to or less than 0.657 was considered as
dissimilar as for an anatomically neighboring bone. Any correlation equal to or less than 0.271
was considered as grossly dissimilar as for a bone anatomically two bones away.

The Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba AME-VP-1/71 bone was correlated with the baboon
(Papio cynocephalus) bone (see Figure 3), the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) bone (see Figure
4), and the human (Homo sapiens) bone (see Figures 5 and 6). The baboon, chimpanzee and
human bones also were compared to each other.


Figure 3. The baboon, Papio cynocephalus, toe bones plantar view as shown in Swindler and Wood.4


Figure 4. The chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, toe bones plantar view as shown in Swindler and Wood.4


Figure 5. The human, Homo sapiens, toe bones plantar view as shown in Swindler and Wood.4


Figure 6. The human, Homo sapiens, toe bones plantar view as shown in Spalteholz.4

RESULTS

The plantar view of bone AME-VP-1/71 as shown in Nature correlated 0.975 with the
same bone at 2.26 greater magnification. That suggested that this test was independent of any
magnification or reduction in the photographic images of the fossil. The photograph of AMEVP-
1/71 shown in Time correlated 0.983 with the same image at double the magnification. This
result confirmed that magnification did not significantly affect the correlation and additionally
demonstrated that the test was reliable and calibrated for the effects of magnification.

The dorsal view of the fourth digit, phalanx 1, human toe bone shown in Swindler and
Wood correlated 0.906 with the same human bone in Spalteholz.5 That suggested that the atlas
employed would lower the correlation to about 0.9. However, the plantar views correlated 0.764
and that lack of agreement between views seemed worthy of further investigation. To illumine
the cause of the disparity, plantar and dorsal views were correlated for each atlas. For the
Spalteholz atlas, the plantar and dorsal views correlated 0.936 whereas for the Swindler and
Wood atlas their plantar and dorsal views correlated 0.605. That suggested that the cause of the
lower correlation between atlases for the plantar views was the lower reliability of the plantar
view in the Swindler and Wood atlas compared to the Spalteholz atlas. This result suggested that
the atlas employed lowered the correlation to about 0.906 for the reliable views.

The phalanx 1 toe bone was correlated 0.657 with the phalanx 2 toe bone and 0.271 with
the phalanx 3 toe bone.5 For this study, a correlation of 0.657 or less was considered dissimilar
and a correlation of 0.271 or less grossly dissimilar. See Figure 2.

The AME-VP-1/71 bone shown in Nature was from a left foot but it was compared to the
same bone in the right foot because the atlases did not show the left foot. The baboon,
chimpanzee and human S&W correlations were made with the Swindler and Wood atlas whereas
the human S correlations were made with the Spalteholz atlas. Accordingly, the plantar view of
AME-VP-1/71 correlated 0.575 with the baboon bone, 0.491 with the chimpanzee bone, 0.743
with the human S&W bone, 0.613 with the human S bone. The baboon and chimpanzee bones
were correlated 0.856. These results suggested that the AME-VP-1/71 bone had some similarity
to humans, less to baboons and least similarity to chimpanzees. However, all of those similarities
were lower than the baboon-chimpanzee similarity. The lack of higher correlations with humans
and chimpanzees and the chimpanzee correlation out of the evolutionary order suggested further
research.

Accordingly, another analysis was done with a more distinct plantar image of the AMEVP-
1/71 bone.6 In this analysis the AME-VP-1/71 bone was correlated 0.615 with the baboon
bone, 0.461 with the chimpanzee bone, 0.761 with the human S&W bone, 0.681 with the human
S bone. Each correlation was slightly higher than the previous analysis with the chimpanzee
correlation slightly lower. The lack of evolutionary sense, the suggestion that chimpanzees
evolved to baboons, persisted and none of these correlations were as high as the 0.856 baboonchimpanzee
correlation.

This suggested investigating the dorsal view of AME-VP-1/71 and correlating it to the
dorsal views in the atlases. The AME-VP-1/71 bone correlated 0.460 with the baboon bone,
0.308 with the chimpanzee bone, 0.739 with the human S&W bone, 0.873 with the human S
bone. Except for human S bone, the correlations were lower and in the same order. The baboonchimpanzee
correlation was 0.806. This analysis yielded no additional clarification.

In a final attempt at clarification, for each bone the dorsal view data were combined with
the plantar view data. For these combined data, the AME-VP-1/71 bone correlated 0.475 with
the baboon bone, 0.377 with the chimpanzee bone, 0.729 with the human S&W bone, 0.722 with
the human S bone. The baboon-chimpanzee correlation was 0.820 whereas the baboon-human
correlations were 0.329 and 0.549 for S&W and S, respectively. The chimpanzee-human
correlations were 0.197 and 0.332 for S&W and S, respectively. These combined data confirmed
that the AME-VP-1/71 bone had scant similarity to humans (compare Figure 1 with Figure 2,
Phalanx I), was dissimilar to baboons and most dissimilar to chimpanzees. The monkey was
similar to the ape, dissimilar to the human and the most dissimilar was the ape and human. The
ancestral sequence suggested was not the Haile-Salassie and Robinson monkey-great ape-human
but rather great ape-monkey. These objective analyses identified the Haile-Salassie and
Robinson conclusions as farfetched speculations.

DISCUSSION

Oxnard did complex multivariate statistical analyses and found, “Nor, however, can man
be described as a mosaic of other forms. In almost all studies man lies quite separately from the
spectra of non-human species . . . ” This multi-dimensional method employing rotations by
means of matrix algebra and a computer found essentially what the present simpler method
found but the complex method had no cutoff for similarity, which the present simpler method
has.7 This may also give insight to the concern that a simpler two-dimensional method may fall
short on three dimensional objects. Like errors, shortcomings do not help but rather hinder
finding differences and high correlations. If a simpler method finds what a complex method
finds, then that suggests that all the complexity may not be necessary. This should also clarify
whether or not confounding variables like dimorphism may need special consideration. If
dimorphism were critical, then it would act like error or anything else causing undue variability
and would diminish correlations toward zero rather than allow a correlation as high as 0.906.
From the 18 scores, the present method approximates the outline of the bone. When those
scores are treated by the correlational r, they acquire the attributes of proportionalities. If the
same bone is magnified, the proportions remain constant and that is why the r’s for the two
independent magnification trials were so high and so close, 0.975 and 0.983. The bone and its
magnified image have the same contours and the high correlation indicates a high degree of
similarity. Subjectively, investigators may be confused by size but the r is not. Had there been no
measurement error, the r’s would have been 1.0, perfect in similarity.

If confounding variables and much error are inherent in the atlas materials, then the
correlations would tend toward zero while losing the power to discriminate. Contrarily, if the
atlases were the product of careful work, then the correlations should be high and should reliably
discriminate. And that is what was found. Human bone in one atlas compared to another
correlated 0.906 and that for this study was considered high and reliable. The same bone at
different magnifications was 0.975. When tried again with a different image it was 0.983. For
this study, that demonstrated that the test was reliable, it determined consistently, and was
calibrated for the effects of magnification. The test thereby proved valid, reliable, calibrated and
anyone should be able to reproduce those findings, which means it is objective as well. That
contrasts sharply with the subjective, unquantifiable method of inspection employed by Haile-
Salassie which likely is unreliable and uncalibrated.

Errors tend to be normally and stochastically distributed about the true value. For tests of
statistical significance, they increase the variability which is in the denominator of say a t test
thereby giving a t too small to be significant. In the case of a correlation, the tendency to scatter
equally above and below the true value yields an r close to 0.00. Therefore, errors or
shortcomings are likely to hinder finding statistical significance or a high correlation. If
statistical significance is found or if a high correlation is found it is in spite of errors or
confounding variables not because of them.

Dimorphism is a confounding variable and would have an effect similar to anything else
causing error or variability. It hinders finding significance or a high correlation. For both atlases,
the human sample number and gender(s) were unknown. For the Swindler and Wood atlas, there
were six chimpanzees and 22 baboons all of unspecified genders. If genders whether in small or
large samples made a significant difference, then the humans probably would not have correlated
as high as 0.906 and the baboons and chimpanzees probably would not have correlated across
species lines as high as 0.820.

A photograph may be taken of a bone and even if not to scale its proportionalities will be
the same as the original. From a scale photograph, a tracing may be made and the same may be
said of it. From several preparations, their tracings may be overlaid and the median may be
identified and used in an atlas. If all of the same bones had their shapes quantified and averaged,
then the rendering from those digital data would be very close to the one graphically determined.
The graphical method may be similar to the methods used for atlases and if it were quite faulty
then an r of 0.906 should not have been possible. Perhaps, anatomists deserve more respect than
they are usually accorded.

Some investigators assume that atlases may be constructed with artistic license rather
than carefully from dissections. That was not the case for the atlases used in this study. Swindler
and Wood stated in their preface, “The illustrations of Papio and Pan have been drawn from
original dissections of twenty-two baboons and six chimpanzees, and represent composite
illustrations based upon the specimens.”4 Spalteholz stated in the author’s preface, “The
illustrations, in all cases, have been faithfully drawn from original preparations, but at the same
time no copy of a definite individual case, but always a composite from several sections has been
made.”5

The human bones used by Spalteholz in 1900 probably were different from the human
bones used by Swindler and Wood in 1973 yet for the reliable views the r was 0.906. Let us
pretend that the Spalteholz bones were the ancestors of the Swindler and Wood bones. Let us
suppose further that a human and his ancestor is likely to be correlated about 0.906. Let us call
this the top of the scale of similarity. Now, what is needed is a lower limit of similarity. Any lay
person will observe the significant difference in proportions between phalanx 1 and phalanx 2
and would easily judge them dissimilar (see Figure 2). That level of dissimilarity had an r of
0.657. Now, there is objectively established a range of similarity expected to be between 0.906
and 0.657. If r is lower than 0.657 then the bones are as dissimilar as a bone for an anatomically
different bone. The expectation is that if there is ancestry, then the bones will be in the range of
0.657 to 0.906. This was confirmed with humans compared to humans, 0.906, and across species
lines monkeys compared to apes, 0.820. Monkeys and humans, even more so apes and humans,
were as dissimilar as for an anatomically different bone. The method established those criteria
objectively, validly, reliably and with calibration. Scientifically, that may be considered a higher
standard than the subjective inspection that led to the extravagant claims of Haile-Salassie and
Robinson.

This study used the atlases as standards and they worked well. Had the atlases been
faulty, then the correlations would have approached zero in every comparison and the study
would have failed. Had that happened, then there may have been the need to go out and obtain
materials. The human bones and those of chimpanzees and baboons would have been available
for random sampling but not the solitary fossil bone. Therefore, the sampling approach would
have a benefit only if the atlases were unreliable and if the sampling would have provided more
reliable data. Given reliable atlases, it did not seem a judicious expenditure of resources to
duplicate work already adequate for successful studies.

A case may be made for postponing the study and the report until an adequate sample of
fossils is found. That is like allowing what is perceived to be the only statistical design available,
sample statistics, to dictate scientific activity. Statistics are meant to be a tool, not the master.
The alternative is to seek or invent a statistical design that accommodates a sample of one. By
making repeated determinations on that sample of one, which may be considered random
samples normally distributed, then conventional statistical tools may be applied. The statistical
universe is that sample of one and all conclusions apply only to that sample of one. That is
exactly what was wanted for the present study of a sample of one fossil. Now the question of
scientific acceptability arises. To my knowledge this sample of one method was first reported in
the Research Quarterly in 1959 and was again used successfully and reported in a different
protocol in 1967. It is ideally suited to individualized pilot protocols especially those requiring
stringent, multiple controls. It probably has been used and reported in the literature many times
since 1967 and has been accepted undisputed for generalized application by the scientific
community for more than 40 years. That was the concept used in this study and that is why the
conclusions apply to that fossil as a sample of one and the specified atlases each treated as if they
were samples of one.

Haile-Salassie must consider that what he observes as dorsal tilting may not be
objectively and quantitatively established in the life-long bipedal range. Even if it were in the
life-long bipedal range, it is not likely to have only that similarity and no other. It is not likely to
pass a subjective test but fail an objective test. If it did, then which is to be doubted? The
protocol for an experiment must be repeatable by any scientist in any laboratory and yield the
same answer. Anyone may obtain the results of the present study. Very few have access to the
fossil and although available a better image than that shown in Nature was not made available.
By contrast, the present method is available worldwide. Haile-Salassie’s is confined to a locked
drawer as was done with the Piltdown forgery of 1912-1952. The verdict ought to be put in the
hands of scientists worldwide. Although available and upon request, Haile-Salassie would not
even allow out a better image than the indistinct one that appeared in Nature.

Haile-Salassie apparently is using his eyes and subjective judgement on the slant of a
joint surface, a joint surface unavailable to the scientific community. Were it available, a way
might be found to do a parallel, objective, valid, reliable, calibrated test of similarity. It is not
available, so scientists denied access must do the best they can with whatever is available and
that is what was done. It is unfortunate that those with access do not take seriously their
responsibility to the scientific community at large and devise the objective tests themselves. That
they do not, that they make much from such meager data, that they deny access to even a better
image, and that the results of this modest study are so contradictory make one wonder whether
their purpose is to avoid rather than welcome scientific scrutiny, acceptance and application.
Was the intent instead to proceed directly from a letter to the editor of Nature1 to the acclaim
from a cover story in Time magazine?2 If they are confident of their work with nothing to hide,
then they should behave like bona fide scientists and not like those involved in the Piltdown
forgery.3

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, these results suggested that the AME-VP-1/71 bone had scant similarity to
human bone, was dissimilar to baboon bone and was most dissimilar to chimpanzee bone. The
baboon bone was similar to the chimpanzee and dissimilar to human bone. The chimpanzee was
most dissimilar to humans. Human bone had no similarity to monkey or ape bone. Therefore,
these objective ancestry analyses for fossil bones suggest that the conclusions of Haile-Salassie
and Robinson, that Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba was an ancestor of apes and humans that
walked on two legs, is farfetched speculation.

REFERENCES

1. Haile-Salassie, Y.,. Late Miocene hominids from the Middle Awash, Ethiopia, Nature 412:
178-181, 2001.
2. Robinson, S., Paleontology, one giant step for mankind, Time 158 (3): 54-61, 2001.
3. Walsh, J.E., Unraveling Piltdown: The Science Fraud of the Century and Its Solution,
Random House, New York, pp. 124 – 125, 1996.
4. Swindler, D. R. and C.D. Wood, An atlas of primate gross anatomy, baboon, chimpanzee, and
man, University of Washington Press, Seattle, pp. 52-55, 1973.
5. Spalteholz, W., Hand atlas of human anatomy, Volume I, S. Hirzel, Leipzig, pp. 146-149,
1900.
6. Sarfati, J., Time’s alleged ‘ape-man’ trips up (again)! CEN Tech. J. 15 (3): 7-9, 2001.
7. Oxnard,C.E. The place of australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt? Nature
258: 389-395, 1975.
8. An Objective Ancestry Test for Fossil Bones was published in the peer-reviewed journal, TJ,
The In-Depth Journal of Creation 16(3): 84-88, 2002. It was selected for presentation to the
American Physiological Society Intersociety Meeting, The Power of Comparative Physiology:
Evolution, Integration, and Application, San Diego, August 24-28, 2002. The American
Physiological Society also selected it for a news release, Discovery Of The Oldest Human
Ancestor Is (again) Called Into Question (see below). The abstract of An Objective Ancestry
Test for Fossil Bones was published in The Physiologist 45 (4): 343, 2002. The data suggested
that all ape-men must be forgeries and that there never could have been a common ancestor of
chimpanzees and humans.

Joseph Mastropaolo has a B.S., M.S., Ph.D. in kinesiology and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in
human physiology. As Aerospace Physiologist for Douglas Space Systems, he published two monographs
on life in space, one for humans and one for experimental animals. He taught biomechanics and
physiology at California State University, Long Beach for 26 years and was the physiologist for the
Gossamer Condor and Albatross human powered flight projects which earned a medal in physiology from
the Royal Aeronautical Society for the Kremer cross channel challenge.

NEWS RELEASE
Source: American Physiological Society
Date Posted: Tuesday, September 03, 2002
Web Address: http://www.the-aps.org/meetings/aps/san_diego/home.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020903071117.htm

Discovery Of The Oldest Human Ancestor Is (again) Called Into Question
San Diego, CA — The remains included a jawbone with teeth, hand bones and foot bones,
fragments of arms, and a piece of collarbone. The remains also included a single toe bone; its
form providing strong evidence that the pre-human creatures walked upright.

The discovery by two Ethiopian scholars, Yohannes Haile-Selassie, an anthropologist
studying at the University of California at Berkeley, and Giday Wolde Gabriel, a geologist at the
university’s Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The team discovered the first
fossils in 1997, with the latest one found in 2001.

According to the journal Nature, the fossil bones predate the oldest previously discovered
human ancestor by more than a million years. The teeth and bone fragments apparently are from
a hominid that emerged sometime after the split. The hominid is part of a newly named
subspecies of early man called Ardipithecus. The discoverers state that Ardipithecus ramidus
kadabba is a “Missing Link” — the yet-undiscovered creature that lived at the cusp of the
evolutionary division between man and chimp — but researcher Haile-Selassie said the hominid
certainly is very close to the branching point.

The world’s media trumpeted the news of this anthropological find. Time magazine
dedicated a cover story to the discovery; a staff writer, referred to the special toe bone stating
” This (AME-VP-1/71) proves the creature walked on two legs. . . . How apes became human.
Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. What a new discovery tells scientists about how our oldest
ancestors stood on two legs and made an evolutionary leap.”

Not so fast, states a leading physiologist and an authority on the study of fossils. He
believes that if length was the only objective measurement made on AME-VP-1/71, then there
might be a simple method to yield objective evidence to bridge the gap between the scant
subjective determinations and that the far-reaching conclusion about this “evolutionary leap.”
The author of “An Objective Ancestry Test for Fossil Bones,” is Joseph Mastropaolo,
PhD, Professor Emeritus, California State University, Long Beach; Adjunct Professor, Institute
for Creation Research. He is presenting his findings at “The Power of Comparative Physiology:
Evolution, Integration and Application” an American Physiological Society intersociety meeting
scheduled for August 24-28, 2002, at the Town & Country Hotel, San Diego, CA. Find out more
at http://www.the-aps.org/meetings/aps/san_diego/home.html

If AME-VP-1/71 tested intermediate between chimpanzees and humans and resembled
least baboons, then the conclusions of Haile-Salassie and Robinson would have objective
support. Accordingly, a test was applied to objectively determine for each bone a central axis and
the deviations from it to the lateral and medial bone borders at decile distances from the proximal
to the distal end. For each bone in the same order, these deviations in tenths of millimeters would
be tabulated and correlated. A high correlation between two bones would indicate a high degree
of similarity.

METHODOLOGY

The Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba AME-VP-1/71 bone was correlated with the baboon
bone, the chimpanzee bone, and the human bone. The baboon, chimpanzee and human bones
also were compared to each other.

For each bone, for each decile proximal to distal, all the lateral distances were tabulated
in order followed by all the medial distances. These scores determined the
correlational r, the mathematical magnitude of the similarity expressed from 0.0, no similarity, to
1.0, perfect in similarity. This test was validated by determining the correlation of the bone with
itself at a different magnification. This test should be independent of image magnification and
the correlation should approach 1.0.

This test also was affirmed by identifying the correlation of the same bone in two
different anthropological atlases. Given atlases with perfect fidelity, this test ought to be
independent of the atlas employed and the correlation ought to approach 1.0. The criterion for
similarity was that a correlation exceed the correlation between the phalanx 1 toe bone and its
anatomical neighbor, the phalanx 2 toe bone. A correlation equal to or less than that was
considered as dissimilar as a bone for an anatomically neighboring bone. A correlation equal to
or less than the one between the phalanx 1 and phalanx 3 toe bones was considered as grossly
dissimilar as a bone for an anatomical neighbor two bones away.

RESULTS

An assessment of the bones from the monkey (baboon), ape (chimpanzee) and human,
found similarity between the ape and monkey, dissimilarity between the human and monkey, and
the least similarity among apes and humans. The monkey and ape similarities to human bone
were less than for an anatomically different bone.

The fossil toe bone had scant similarity to humans, dissimilarity to monkeys and most
dissimilarity to apes with the dissimilarities to monkeys and apes like those for an anatomically
different bone.

CONCLUSIONS

The research results suggest that the famous AME-VP-1/71 bone had scant similarity to
human bone, was dissimilar to baboon bone and was most dissimilar to chimpanzee bone. The
baboon bone was similar to the chimpanzee and dissimilar to human bone. The chimpanzee was
most dissimilar to humans. Human bone had no similarity to monkey or ape bone. Accordingly,
the objective ancestry analyses for fossil bones assert that the conclusions of Haile-Salassie and
Robinson were farfetched speculations.

Pithecanthropus alalus was a fraud.
Eoanthropus dawsoni was a fraud.
Hesperopithecus harold cookii was a fraud.
Ota Benga as an ape-man was a fraud.
Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba was a fraud.
All ape-men are frauds.

The American Physiological Society (APS) is one of the world’s most prestigious organizations
for physiological scientists. These researchers specialize in understanding the processes and functions by
which animals live, and thus ultimately underlie human health and disease. Founded in 1887 the
Bethesda, MD-based Society has more than 10,000 members and publishes 3,800 articles in its 14 peerreviewed
journals each year.

CHARLES DARWIN ANTISCIENTIST

Charles Darwin cut and pasted his ideas about evolution mainly from the
superstitions of 2,300 years earlier. His concept of evolution was based on the
writings of the ancient Greek philosophers Anaximander (611 – 549 B.C.),
Empedocles (490 – 430 B.C.), and Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.). From
Anaximander’s ideas of evolution and devolution, he took only the incorrect
evolution half. He added Empedocles’ erroneous idea that evolution would
aimlessly wander and left out Aristotle’s more correct idea of direction coming
within the organism. He pasted on Aristotle’s foolish idea that changes in the
bodies of parents would be passed on to the children. Even in Aristotle’s time,
everyone knew that if a father lost an arm in warfare, his children born after that
would still have two good arms.

Darwin also pasted in the old vitalism superstition of creating life from non
living things, like maggots from dead meat which Redi disproved in 1665. Darwin
ignored the reproducible experiments of scientists like Francesco Redi (1665),
Louis Pasteur (1864) and John Tyndall (1877) amongst others. Never
overturned, those experiments disproved getting life from non life and proved that
life can beget life. Darwin also pasted in the scientifically disgraced ideas of
Lamarck (1744-1829) that if the neck of a giraffe is stretched it will get longer,
be passed on to the children as Aristotle erroneously said.

Dr. Joseph Lister progressed the science of Pasteur and saved many lives.
Darwin retrogressed with evolution superstitions that supported slavery and the
evolutionist dictator wars of the 20th century that cost 189 million lives. Choosing
lethal superstitions instead of science qualified Charles Darwin as an antiscientist.

21ST CENTURY BIOLOGY

BIOLOGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
AND THE LIFE SCIENCE PRIZE

TESTED DEVOLUTION, EVOLUTION, AND GENESIS
©JOSEPH MASTROPAOLO, PH.D., 2005

   INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………2
1 BIOLOGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY TESTIFIES ON HUMAN ORIGIN………………………..3
2 LONGEVITY, THE FLOOD AND GENETIC DISORDERS……………………………………………7
3 AGE OF THE EARTH…………………………………………………………………………………………11
4 BIOLOGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY EXPLAINS LIFE……………………………………………15
5 THE LIFE SCIENCE PRIZE ACID TEST FOR BIOLOGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY……..20
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………….23
BIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………………….24
CARTOONS……………………………………………………………………………………………………..27
INDEX……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..28

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

          Biology for the 21st century is based on objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated observational and experimental evidence that any researcher may confirm. The U.S. Census Bureau historical estimates indicated an original human couple several thousand years ago. Observational and DNA evidence indicated that they were fully human whereas the ape-man and chemical-to-human alternatives were based on frauds and forgeries. Furthermore, medically verified, ever increasing, human mutations confirmed universal devolution, eliminated ape-men and evolution, and inferred a worldwide flood.

        The age of the Earth by direct, historical records was found reliable at 6,800 years old whereas confidence limits found the 19th century indirect methods unreliable. The 20th century radioisotope indirect methods were found significantly biased, invalid, unreliable, uncalibrated, and if calibrated still entirely unreliable, invalid, and useless for any estimate for the age of the Earth. The only scientifically responsible conclusion was that the Earth is 6,800 years old.

         The laws of engineering confirmed the design of each life form and the entire biosphere for interdependence and survival endurance as confirmed by biology for the 21st century. Each life form exhibits genetic reserves for dynamic survival in fixed, manifested, and latent overlapping niches in a biosphere of vast variation. The vast variation and the latent unmanifested individual and population dynamic genetic reserves are proof positive of mega-engineering that evolution could never provide.

         The Life Science Prize, the default judgment, and the reward are positive proof that evolution is an inverted-fantasy religion based on vitalism superstitions 2,500 years old completely outside the realm of science, the exact opposite of reality, and taught exclusively by frauds, forgeries, brass and bluff in the public schools in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Whereas, Genesis read literally is scientifically tenable and devolution is a universal law.

CAN LIFE ARISE FROM NON LIFE?

People believed for thousands of years that live maggots could be spawned from dead
meat. In 1665, Francesco Redi (1626–1697) put meat in three jars, one open, one closed with
gauze and the third closed with paper. Flies laid their eggs on the meat in the open jar. The eggs
hatched to maggots, then young flies. Unable to reach the meat, flies laid their eggs on the gauze
of the second jar and the maggots hatched on the gauze, not on the meat. No eggs were laid on the
paper or the meat of the third jar, so it remained free of maggots. With this repeatable experiment,
Redi proved scientifically that life, the maggots, comes from life, the flies, and not from non life,
the dead meat. This proved that vitalism and evolution, which depend on vitalism, were
superstitions. However, the vitalists would not give up. They maintained that the
microorganisms that grow in a culture broth or that ferment beers or wines were spawned from
nothing alive.


Figure 1. Redi’s experiment proved that life, maggots, from non life, meat, was superstition.

In 1864 the archetype scientist, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), proved that the
microorganisms causing fermentation were airborne, not spontaneously generated as the evolution
vitalists insisted. Pasteur also provided reproducible evidence that the airborne distribution of
microorganisms is not uniform. Besides these undisputed experiments, Pasteur successfully
applied these findings to his work on vaccines for chicken cholera, anthrax and rabies. Yet in spite
of all this reproducible scientific evidence, and without one experiment to the contrary, the
evolution vitalists like Charles Darwin, as well as modern biology textbook authors, persisted in
propagandizing the ancient Greek spontaneous generation superstitions of 2,300 years earlier.


Figure 2. Pasteur’s experiments proved that microorganisms come from life, not non life.

Unlike Darwin and other evolutionists, true scientists like Dr. Joseph Lister
(1827–1912) did not dishonor Pasteur’s new scientific knowledge but rather applied it to medical
practice in 1865. For surgeries, Lister sterilized for atmospheric germs with carbolic acid thereby
preventing infection and saving many lives. Like Pasteur and Lister, scientists replace
superstition with repeatable experiments and apply the new knowledge to the relief of human
suffering and the saving of lives. Antiscientists like Darwin regressed to lethal superstitions that
supported slavery and genocide wars at a cost of many millions of lives and great suffering.

                     
Figure 3. Applying Pasteur’s new knowledge, Lister sterilized for germs and saved many lives

.
In 1877, the physicist, John Tyndall (1820–1893), with an ingenious apparatus and
protocol proved most rigorously that life cannot arise from non life. His apparatus demonstrated
that light was invisible in a clean chamber and visible when dust with its invisible cargo of
bacteria was introduced. His protocol provided for the cycling of sterilizing heat which killed the
bacterial spores that hatched and became vulnerable after the first thermal stress. This settled the
issue for all time. Scientifically, vitalism and all of its evolution elaborations to “the many
different kinds of organisms living today, including you,” were disproven and relegated to the
dustbin of superstitions. These reproducible experiments have never been overturned and they
refute forever the superstitions of life coming from non life and endlessly evolving.

                  
Figure 4. Tyndall’s apparatus for proving that bacteria cannot spawn or evolve spontaneously.

Summary. Like non living machines, living organisms must be engineered. That means
planned, organized, coordinated, commanded and controlled. Living organisms are the most
complicated objects in the universe so the requirement is mega-engineering, not the sub-idiot,
headless, phantom, superstitious, engineering in the hallucinations of evolutionists.

AGE OF THE EARTH

One of the claims made by evolutionists is that the early Earth was molten with exploding
volcanoes and many meteors in a sky dominated by a giant sun. The implication is that this
imagined chaos somehow inverted the laws of physics so that a living cell spontaneously generated
itself then diversified to every life form that ever lived. There is no evidence that the early sun
looked gigantic or that the Earth was molten or chaotic or that the laws of physics were ever any
different than they are today. Like today, the early Earth could never have spawned evolution.

AGE OF THE EARTH

Evolutionists of the 19th century claimed that the Earth was millions of years old. Their
estimates from nature, solar thermodynamics and ocean salinity ranged from 75,032 to 100,000,000
years old or 53,015,006 ± 45,199,699 years old (mean ± standard deviation). The evolutionists of
the 20th century claimed that the Earth was billions of years old. Their estimates ranged from
200,000,000 to 5 billion years old or 2.61 ± 1.79 billion. Curiously according to the evolutionists, in
one century, the Earth aged 2.56 billion years. It seemed strange that in 1921, according to them, the
Earth was 1.5 billion years old and in 1991 it was 4.5 billion years old. In those 70 years, according
to the evolutionists, the Earth and I as well, aged 3 billion years. According to the evolutionists, I am
a 3 billion-year-old ambulating fossil. A simple example will show how science eliminates such
unreliable determinations.

Suppose the scores for measuring the height of a child in centimeters (cm) by method A are
100, 99, 101, 98 and 102. The mean is 100 and the standard deviation (SD), a measure of variability,
is 1.6. Now, suppose by method B the scores are 10, 190, 1, 199 and 100. The mean is 100 but the
SD is 95. Suppose by method C the scores are 0,0,0,0,500. The mean is 100 but the SD is 224.
Obviously, A is the most reliable and C the least reliable. But if we consider only the mean, they
seem the same. One way to expose the reliability of each method is to describe a range two SD
above the mean and two SD below the mean. That range will contain the true value with a 95%
certainty. For method A the range would be 97 to 103, for B – 89 to 289 and for C – 124 to 324.
Should we reject any of these methods? Obviously, the child cannot be a negative height so we can
eliminate methods B and C. That leaves only method A with a 95% probability that the true height
of the child is between 97 and 103 with the best estimate, the mean, at 100 cm.

The same test can be applied to the estimates for the age of the Earth. Obviously, the Earth
has been born and any method so unreliable as to put the 95% range into the future ought to be
rejected, just as we rejected a negative height for the child. That test rejected the estimates of the
19th century (37 million years into the future) and the 20th century (971 million years into the
future). Scientists therefore admit that there is no objective, valid, reliable, calibrated retrospective
clock to estimate the age of the Earth.

Prior to the 19th century, secondary historical records were employed to estimate the age of
the Earth. These gave an age of about 6,800 ± 870 years old with a 95% range of about 5,000 to
8,500 years old. There does not seem to be anything in history to cast doubt on this range of dates.
For scientists, this provides a reasonable alternative. While we are at it, we may as well consult
these secondary historical sources for the date of the worldwide flood. That date is approximately
Age of the Earth, Medical Science, Adam, Eve, Eden, and the Flood ©Joseph Mastropaolo 2004 1
1,650 years after creation. From that time, these historical sources also report that human longevity
declined about 90% in a curvilinear fashion. That in turn suggests that the beginning of the
curvilinear rise in genetic disorders, as documented from the scientific medical data, began after the
worldwide flood with most of the genetic damage occurring in the first three centuries (see Figure 1).

THE TOPSY-TURVY EVOLUTIONIST REASONS FOR AN OLD EARTH

Evolutionists would like to say the Earth is old to provide ample time for evolution to work.
We know this is topsy-turvy reasoning because time universally yields devolution, the exact
opposite of evolution. The older the Earth is the greater would be the ravages of time and the greater
the certainty that every life form would have devolved to extinction. Everyone observes that life is
mortal but the topsy-turvy evolutionists want us to believe that life can go on for millions or
billions of years with no end in sight. In spite of trillions of observations by billions of people for
thousands of years that life forms devolve, die and go extinct, they want us to believe that life is
immortal and will evolve forever. Never seen, evolution is the universe’s topsy-turvy phantom.

GENETIC VARIATIONS

Another claim is that evolution’s primary mechanism is genetic variations such as mutations.
Genetic variations may yield Shetland horses of 300 pounds or Belgian horses of 2,300 pounds but
never a horse that evolved to a cow or anything else. Genetic variations never lead to another life
form. Trillions of observations by billions of people over thousands of years attest that life forms
are fixed. They must be fixed or the entire elegantly balanced interdependent biosphere would be
thrown into chaos and mass extinction.

MUTATIONS

Another claim is that natural selection will evolve any life form to superior survivability by
means of the biological advantages garnered from mutations. The sickle cell allele is the favorite
example in current biology textbooks. For example, “The sickle cell allele confers an unexpected
advantage in Africa,” and “Why is sickle cell anemia so common in some regions . . . The answer to
that question is a surprising lesson in evolution . . . That mutation conferred an advantage wherever
malaria was common, and thus it was favored by natural selection.” As usual, the student is
expected to memorize that lesson without any supporting evidence, without a single peer reviewed
study from any science journal. However, the evidence indicates the exact opposite of what is
taught in the biology textbooks. The sickle cell mutation is the exact opposite of a biological
advantage. The sickle cell mutation maims organs, it gives infants fatal anemia, it is a lethal genetic
disorder, it is a killer. Again, we find that the evolution lessons in biology textbooks are the exact
opposite of the truth. Let us explore beyond the lethal sickle cell mutation to see whether the other
mutations are biologically advantageous, or contrarily morbid and lethal.

HUMAN MUTATIONS

Currently, more than 15,400 human mutations have been described and reported in the
medical literature. Some of these include Alzheimer disease, muscular dystrophy, and more than a
dozen types of cancer including several kinds of leukemia. Obviously, these cause significant
morbidity and mortality. We also find cataracts, color blindness, cretinism, cystic fibrosis, Down
Age of the Earth, Medical Science, Adam, Eve, Eden, and the Flood ©Joseph Mastropaolo 2004 2
syndrome, dyslexia, and emphysema. These conditions also are the opposite of what any sane
person would call a biological advantage. These thousands also include hemophilia, familial
hypercholesterolemia, hypothyroidism, Lou Gehrig disease, multiple sclerosis, pituitary dwarfism,
rheumatoid arthritis, Tay Sachs disease, thalassemia, sickle cell disease, deafness, blindness,
ventricular hypertrophy, microcephalus, and anencephalus. They are debilitating. They are life
threatening. They are lethal. Not one biological advantage can be found. The box score is more than
15,400 medically described mutations cause debilitation, morbidity or death and zero yield a
biological advantage. From the medical literature, the evidence suggesting evolution is zero and the
evidence suggesting the exact opposite, devolution, is more than 15,400. Obviously, evolution is the
exact opposite of reality.

NEW HUMAN MUTATIONS

Human mutations have been cataloged since 1966 under the medical term, genetic disorders.
The catalogs, Mendelian Inheritance In Man, in the 1960’s gathered what was known from the
periodical and monograph literature. Subsequent catalogs reported new genetic disorders as they
appeared in the medical journals. The process required continual revisions and these were reported
with the newly emerging disorders. For example, for January 2002 the report was “83 New Entries,
680 Changed.” The New Entries are the new genetic disorders and the Changed are the revisions.
The analyses in this report were made on the New Entries, the new genetic disorders, the new
human mutations.

If evolution is true, then we should observe a decrease in human mutations, medically
designated human genetic disorders, over time according to one definition of evolution, change over
time, and another definition, natural selection. According to the evolution concept, genetic disorders
would be biological disadvantages and would be eliminated by natural selection. Those without the
genetic disorders would have biological advantages and more offspring compared to those with the
biological disadvantages. Over time, those with the genetic disorders would die out and the fittest,
those without the genetic disorders, would displace them. That means that the graph of human
genetic disorders over time would decline. As can be seen in Figure 1, the trend in medically reported
new genetic disorders is an increase in a curvilinear accelerating pattern. The actual data show that
genetic disorders doubled every 13 years through the sixties, seventies and eighties. In the nineties,
genetic disorders doubled in about half the time, every seven years. That is a remarkable acceleration
in the appearance of new genetic disorders. Beyond any doubt, the trend is devolution and
extinction, the exact opposite of the evolutionist claim that the dominant life form will perfect itself
forever like a biological perpetual motion machine. Time ravages everything including everything
alive. Nothing in the entire biosphere is immortal. Again, evolution is a hallucination the exact
opposite of reality.

SCIENTIFIC RETROSPECTION

Let us extrapolate to the past and see what medical science specifies. Going backward in
time we find the Earth’s human population ever diminishing until we arrive at an original couple.
The medical evidence also reveals fewer and fewer genetic disorders until we find that the original
couple, Adam and Eve, are genetically perfect. For every other complex life form we find their
genetically perfect Adam and Eve in what would be a genetically perfect garden, Eden, with pristine
Age of the Earth, Medical Science, Adam, Eve, Eden, and the Flood ©Joseph Mastropaolo 2004 3
air and water and soil, where longevity for humans is normally 900 years. We also have
unimpeachable medical evidence that suggests the correlation of the curvilinear decline in post-flood
longevity, from Noah to David, with the curvilinear incline of new genetic disorders. The data
suggest that genetic disorders began to increase after the flood and that probably was associated
with the diminished longevity to 70 years by the time of David. This suggestion is shown by the
dashed line in Figure 1. Uncensored medical science confirms the Bible and destroys the lethal,
psychotic, inverted-fantasy antiscience of evolution.

Figure 1. The correlation of the curvilinear decline in post-flood longevity with the curvilinear incline
of medically reported new genetic disorders supports Genesis and refutes evolution.

Wherever these data have been presented, the reactions of evolutionists have ranged from the
commission of civil torts and threats of death by stoning to merely demented with rage. Although all
are inexcusable for even those disguised as scientists, it is understandable because this
unimpeachable medical evidence completely destroys the evolution concept while simultaneously
supporting Genesis. Were I a devout evolutionist, I too might be demented with rage against the
medical evidence exposing the 2,500–year–old antiscience vitalism superstition called, evolution.

CONCLUSION

A young Earth, Adam, Eve, Eden, the Flood, and an exclusively and continuously devolving
biosphere are scientifically tenable whereas the universe’s topsy-turvy phantom, evolution, is
scientifically untenable.
REFERENCE
Mastropaolo, Joseph A. The rise and fall of evolution, a scientific examination. 2003. pp. 49-62, 79-
86.
Age of the Earth, Medical Science, Adam, Eve, Eden, and the Flood ©Joseph Mastropaolo 2004

PHYSICS NON LIVING FANTASIES

PHYSICS. A scientific examination of the universe reveals no evolution whatsoever. An
examination of the laws of physics reveals that evolution cannot exist. An examination of the
energy laws reveals that only devolution, the exact opposite of evolution, exclusively exists. An
examination of the biosphere reveals that only life begets life and only with less vitality. The
individual complex organism has the least number and severity of genetic disorders at conception
and the most the instant before death. The individual is the model of its population because a
medical scientific examination of genetic disorders in a population reveals the same pattern.
Furthermore, extinction is permanent for the individual and its population again confirming the
exclusive rule of devolution.

THE NON VIABLE WORLD.
 A scientific examination of the non viable world reveals the same
principles. Nothing evolves, everything devolves. Every object had to be created and it was at its
structural and functional best when brand-new. It progressively devolved to extinction and
eventually a pile of chemicals. The chemicals could never assemble themselves into the object.
Any assembly had to be done by engineering, that is, by planning, organizing, coordinating,
commanding, and controlling. Once anything is created, it cannot change into something else.
Though made of the same chemicals, a train cannot evolve to a ship. “That original organic soup”
cannot evolve to the structural complexity of even one protein.

THE LIVING WORLD
. In the world of living organisms, the biosphere, there is balance and
interdependence beyond the intelligence of humans to fully understand. We do know that we
cannot synthetically manufacture our air, water, soil, and foods and live for any extended period
of time. Disruption of the biosphere definitely will cause our permanent extinction and possibly
that of all life forms. If organisms could change to other life forms, then there would be chaos, no
balance, and mass extinction. Organisms must be fixed for mutual survival and trillions of
observations by billions of people over thousands of years attest that all life forms are indeed
fixed. Nothing evolves into anything else. “Early bacteria” evolving to amoebas, a frog changing to
a prince, the dead wood of a marionette changing to a boy are childish fantasies from ancient
vitalism superstitions and fairy tales, not science.


FANTASIES. If someone said he had bought a brand-new car the night before and in the
morning found it rusted and rotted to a pile of powder, then we would note that his story
described correctly the direction of the laws of physics but rust and rot do not occur that fast.
Scientists note that such a tall tale is a fantasy. Contrarily, if he says that a pile of sand and iron
ore evolved into a brand-new car, then we recognize this as an inverted fantasy because it is the
exact opposite of the way reality works. So, the evolution story of evolving chemicals to people
is not merely a fantasy, it is an inverted fantasy. It is not the cow-jumped-over-the-moon kind of
tall tale because cows can jump a low fence. It is the grass-ate-the-cow kind of tall tale, the
inverted, upside-down kind of fantasy.


SUMMARY
In summary, evolution does not exist, never has and never will, because it is
an inverted fantasy. Biology exclusively specifies fixed organisms in a balanced and
interdependent biosphere in which all life forms are at their best when brand-new and thereafter
proceed to permanent extinction as individuals and populations. This suggests the creation of the
biosphere as a complex, genetically perfect, global organism by means of the laws of engineering.

As ants cannot comprehend the civil engineering of New York City, so human intelligence
aggregated cannot comprehend the mega macro and nano biological engineering of the biosphere.
To attach the origin and diversity of life to the universe’s brainless phantom, evolution, is the
ultimate intellectual insult. That the public schools and universities of the United States of
America should be engaged in such a travesty, not only violates the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States of America, but it degrades the realistic thinking ability of
science students to below no science education whatsoever. Teaching the exact opposite of
reality, like a photographic negative, promotes psychosis, not education.
For the scientific evidence for the above summary, see the book, The Rise and Fall of
Evolution, A Scientific Examination,
 and the peer reviewed and other articles.

EVOLUTION IS LETHAL ANTISCIENCE

EVOLUTION IS LETHAL ANTISCIENCE
© JOSEPH MASTROPAOLO, PH.D.* PEER REVIEWED PAPER PUBLISHED IN CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY 38: 151-158, 2001.[*PROFESSOR EMERITUS, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH; ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY, GRADUATE SCHOOL, INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH, 10946 WOODSIDE AVENUE N., SANTEE, CA 92071] 

ABSTRACT
The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, life spontaneously generated from nonlife. The superstructure placed upon that foundation is monogenesis, myriad spontaneously generated structures to produce every kind of simple life form then by countless spontaneous generations every kind of complex life form. The other “definitions” of evolution are change over time, common descent and natural selection. Laboratory abiogenesis has failed consistently and dredging the bottoms of the oceans yielded the inert sulfate of lime, not the fraudulent “monera.” The simulated abiogenesis of the proteins to mock-up the simplest original cell is more than a zillion (>104,000,0000, 1 followed by more than 4,000,000 zeros) times more impossible than the mathematical definition of impossible. The probability of monogenesis was not attempted because myriad multiplications of impossible yield impossible to unimaginable extremes. The common textbook instructions, “life arose in the ancient seas” from “that original organic soup,” are teaching the innumerable miracles of the evolution religion and that violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of a state supported church. To meet the requirements of science and the Constitution, these lessons must be changed to “life was created,” as in “Henry Ford created the Ford automobile.”

“Change over time,” “definition one” of evolution, actually describes devolution to extinction, the exact opposite of evolution. “Common descent,” “definition two” of evolution, actually describes true-to-type devolution to extinction, again the exact opposite of evolution. A sample engineering analogue, as well as actual epidemiological data from human genetic disorders and fatal birth defects, identify “natural selection,” the alleged “primary mechanism” for evolution, as actually a mechanism for devolution to extinction, the exact opposite of evolution. Both “definitions” of evolution and evolution’s “primary mechanism” yield universal devolution to extinction. Additionally, evolution is the antithesis of science because it cloaks current permanent accelerating human and biosphere extinction in the garb of biologically advantageous progress. Evolution wantonly militates against countermeasures while myriad individuals and populations, including humans, are accelerated to the greatest mass extinction in history. Therefore, evolution is identified here as the wantonly lethal antiscience ruling the summit of criminality. As a first step for self defense against imminent permanent human and biosphere mass extinction, the evolution movement must be expunged worldwide.

Key words: evolution, creation, lethal, antiscience, abiogenesis, monogenesis, genetic disorders, extinction, summit criminality, state religion, fatal birth defects.

 

I. INTRODUCTION
Evolution has ruled biology for more than a century. That is a remarkable achievement and the purpose of this paper is to illumine why evolution is so controversial and why it is considered here to be at the summit of criminality. The approach is to pursue the various definitions of evolution and to examine the evidence. As needed, principles from the sciences shall be brought to bear.
The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, a living cell allegedly springing to life from nonliving matter. This apparently is based on the “monera” fraud of Ernst Haeckel (Assmuth and Hull, 1915, pp. 74-76). The nonexistent monera were misrepresented as primitive missing-link single cells found in the slime at the bottom of oceans but in fact were inert precipitates of sulfate of lime (Rupke, 1971, pp. 169-183; Becker, 1999, pp. 14-18). To synthesize a monera, the Miller-Urey experiments failed remarkably and consistently (Yockey, 1992, pp. 231, 232, 234, 238 -241; Miller and Levine, 2000, p. 344). Furthermore, the simulated evolution of a small protein for a small cell yielded an improbability comparable to a successful perpetual motion machine (Yockey, 1992, p. 257). In spite of no evidence from nature or the laboratory or simulation, abiogenesis persists in current high school and university biology textbooks as “life arose in the ancient seas” from “that original organic soup” (Johnson, 1998, p. 195; Miller and Levine, 2000, pp. 344, 346). To the apparent impossibility of abiogenesis, evolution concatenates the apparent impossibilities of monogenesis, the parent cell spontaneously diversifying to form all other kinds of single-cell organisms, then these in turn spontaneously complicating to all multicellular life forms.

Another approach to evolution is by way of its meanings. Apparently, there are three. “Definition one” is change over time. It is stated that evolution of this type is a fact. “Definition two” is common descent. This is treated as though it were a fact. “Definition three” is natural selection, the primary mechanism for definitions one and two (American Scientific Affiliation, 1996, p. 3).
This study will be limited to an examination of abiogenesis, monogenesis, change over time, common descent and natural selection.

II. DATA ON ABIOGENESIS AND MONOGENESIS

Let us begin by examining the foundation of evolution, abiogenesis. The necessary elements in nature are believed to have spontaneously joined together and spontaneously generated life in a cell. We incompletely know, but the cell would not know at all, that its metabolic functions of digestion, circulation, respiration, excretion, movement, repair, and reproduction would depend upon the spontaneously generated polysaccharides, lipids, amino acids, alpha helixes, polypeptide chains, assembled quaternary protein subunits, and nucleotides. At least all of these extremely complex subunits must spontaneously self-combine then further spontaneously combine into the still more complex functioning cellular structures, like the mazes of conduits containing automatically moving raw materials and finished products to and from peripheral assembly organelles, energy systems, long-chain proteins, and nucleic acids. In preparation for an electrical storm, for example, exactly the right mix of the spontaneously generated DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, cell membrane material with its millions of gate-controlled apertures, enzymes, and scores of other protein structures, each a complex machine in its own right, must be spontaneously and precisely positioned (Behe, 1996, pp. 262-268; Denton, 1986, p. 263). Then with every atom in the right place at the right time the first cell might be thunderbolted together and spring to life. Even these incomplete details are not mentioned in the biology textbooks and none of the above references are cited. No calculation of the probability of any of those events is given to the student to estimate whether or not what is being taught has the same or greater improbability of miracles, which would rule it out of science. Without evidence, the student is expected to believe on faith the dogma that a cell somehow sprang to life in the distant past “in the ancient seas” “that original organic soup” (Johnson, 1998, p.195; Miller and Levine, 2000, p. 346).

The objective determination of abiogenesis as science, or as miracles, may be approached by observing that many functions in a living cell are determined by the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the peculiar organic chemistry of biologically useful amino acids in viable proteins. When amino acids are synthesized in the laboratory, about half are left-handed and about half are right-handed. Yet, only the left-handed ones are biologically useful. Of the left-handed, there are 20 eligible amino acids for each of perhaps hundreds of positions in a viable protein, but almost always only one correct choice can meet the functional requirements. Almost always a peptide bond is required and any other will cause the protein to fail biologically. Sometimes with a correct primary structure, the correct secondary or tertiary or quaternary structures may not materialize because the solution conditions for the synthesis were not exact. Taking the complex biochemistry into account which yields the complex submicroscopic geometries biologically required, a search may be made for the probability of creating a protein by chance as specified by evolution. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times a trillion vigintillion. A trillion vigintillion has 75 zeros. In evolution’s terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. That is devastating for evolution because there would be no time to complete that single molecule, no time to evolve the scores of thousands of proteins required for one cell, no time to evolve all the other simple cells and no time to evolve all the complex organisms for a functioning biosphere. The author of this landmark monograph concluded, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability” (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257). That should settle the question but let us employ an extra measure of patient endurance and continue the search.

The evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, stated: Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein- based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one” (Dawkins, 1996, pp. 144, 146).

The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins’ own evolutionist criterion for the impossibility of evolution, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by more than 50 orders of magnitude not for a whole cell but for only one molecule of one small protein in that cell. Had Dawkins been influenced by the literature (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257), he would not have said, “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” (Johnson, 1993, p.9). Dawkins by his own probability estimate, with more than 50 orders of magnitude to spare, has identified himself as a non believer in evolution and needs to ask whether he considers himself “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.” That surfeit of evidence, more than 50 orders of magnitude, should surely settle the case but let us continue the search.

According to Dembski and Borel, specified events of small probability do not occur. Dembski estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He used the Planck value of 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by ten million for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150, or more exactly 0.5 x 10150, for his Law of Small Probability to eliminate chance (Dembski, 1998, pp. 5, 62, 209, 210).

Currently, there does not seem to be a scientific criterion more generous to evolution than Dembski’s one chance in 0.5 x 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. To test against that criterion, we take one chance in 2.3 x 1075 for one protein (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257) and multiply by the 60,000 proteins required for the abiogenesis of a minimal cell (Denton, 1986, p. 263; Morowitz, 1966, pp. 446-459) and obtain one chance in more than 104,478,296 (Mastropaolo, 1999, p. iii). That exceeds Dembski’s most generous criterion for impossible by more than 104,478,146. Or if 0.5 x 10150 to 1 is the most generous probability science can provide to demarcate possibility from miracle, then with more than four million orders of magnitude to spare abiogenesis must be considered miraculous. To put abiogenesis in biology textbooks as evolutionists have done throughout the United States is to teach evolution religion as science and that violates the requirement of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a state religion (Constitution of the United States of America, 1787, Amendment I, see note).

With abiogenesis so unimaginably impossible, it is a waste of time to examine monogenesis which rests upon the abiogenesis foundation. With the innumerable spontaneous generations of abiogenesis so impossible, the additional countless spontaneous generations of monogenesis built upon that foundation are impossible to an even greater extreme. In order to document this problem of comprehending such extreme impossibilities, dimensioning the improbability of abiogenesis may be useful. Numbers like 104,478,296 are incomprehensively large. It is the number 1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros. There is no English word for it. There ought to be some way to give a sense of such a magnitude. For example, if a perpetual motion machine is probabilistically impossible and has a probability of 1075 to 1 against it (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257), then how many impossible perpetual motion machines would abiogenesis’ 104,478,296 to 1 against it represent? The answer is the impossibility of 104,478,221 perpetual motion machines, also a number too large to imagine. Let us persevere and consider the Blue Fairy that animated Pinocchio (Collodi, 1883, see note) as one chance in 10150, that is, she is impossible according to Dembski’s criterion for impossible. The abiogenesis of only one type of simple unassembled protein raw material to mock-up a minimal original cell is more impossible than 104,478,146 Blue Fairies. Again, this is too large a number to imagine. In passing, we may note that evolution is likely the greatest fairy tale ever told because every elementary particle, like an electron, in the entire cosmos could be occupied by a Blue Fairy playing Musical Chairs at the incredible tempo of 1045 changes per second for more than 20 billion years with more than 104,478,146 Blue Fairies patiently waiting a turn to play. Instead of biology, American students are being taught evolution’s peerless blend of championship science fiction with children’s fairy tales. But let us not give up. Let us consider a universe 100 billion light years in diameter, probably double the size of ours, and ask how many trips across that universe we could make if each probability unit was equal to the diameter of a hydrogen atom. With the hydrogen atoms side by side, the answer would be 104,478,259 trips, again too large for the imagination. Abiogenesis is so immensely improbable that it defies finding a reference to common experience or even a language equivalent to express it abstractly.

To give a language reference, let us define “zillion” as greater than 104,000,000 (1 followed by more than 4,000,000 zeros) and let us define “create” as Webster renders its first meaning, “to cause to come into existence; bring into being; make; originate; esp., to make or design (something requiring art, skill, invention, etc.).” We may quite properly say, “Henry Ford created the Ford automobile,” without attributing to Henry Ford any divine status. Now let us employ these definitions and properly conclude that the probability of evolution’s foundation, abiogenesis, and its superstructure, monogenesis, is more than a zillion to one against them and the probability of creation, without religious connotation, is more than a zillion to one in favor of it. Such probabilities remove every vestige of the vaguest doubt from any objective scientist. Let us close with the reminder that those probabilities are for only one type of simple unassembled protein to mock-up the simplest original cell and they represent gross underestimates. The improbabilities for a complete cell or for a complex life form of trillions of cells or for an ecosystem of millions of different interdependent complex life forms would require multiplications by myriad additional orders of magnitude. The evolutionist mind of Anaximander (611-549 B.C.) must be complimented for imagining abiogenesis and monogenesis (Durant, 1939, p. 138), concepts so improbable that human minds are incapable of comprehending the extent of their impossibility. Authors like Johnson (1998) and Miller and Levine (2000) would be well advised to discontinue violations of the Constitution by removing from their public school textbooks all mention of the countless incredible miracles, abiogenesis and monogenesis. They would bring their public school textbooks into compliance with the requirements of science and the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California if they substituted, “life was created.”

III. DATA ON THE THREE “DEFINITIONS” OF EVOLUTION

Let us now consider “definition one” of evolution, “change over time.” “Because such changes have been repeatedly observed, evolution of this type is a fact” (American Scientific Affiliation, 1996, p. 3). According to common observation, however, all individuals in the biosphere age and die. Once dead, the plants rot and the animals putrefy to simpler nonviable elements. Individually, life forms devolve. Types of life forms as populations also regress from viable to permanent extinction. That too is devolution, not evolution. The nonviable universe also devolves (Humphreys 1978). The first definition of evolution is antonymous to the trillions of consistent observations of billions of people over thousands of years. The exclusive fact is devolution.
“Definition two” for evolution is common descent. This “view that all (or most all) life forms, extant and extinct, are related by common ancestry: a theory about the history of life . . . the common sense observation that all offspring have parents, have led [sic] many scientists to treat the inference of common ancestry as though it were a fact” (American Scientific Affiliation, 1996, p. 3). According to common observation, however, individuals age and die as the same type of individual at birth. Individuals also reproduce true to type. Types of life forms as populations demonstrate variability in characteristics like size, weight, color, and speed of motion but always breed true to their type. For example, Shetland horses may weigh 300 pounds and Belgian horses may weigh a ton more than that. Horses may be described by a mean and a standard deviation for body weight or any other characteristic of horses. It is common knowledge that all variability in parents and offspring is within their type. No mare has ever given birth to a calf and no cow has ever born a foal. Life forms do not transmute to other types of life forms. Life forms as individuals and populations have been observed devolving to extinction but never evolving. The second definition of evolution is antonymous to the trillions of consistent observations of billions of people over thousands of years. Again, devolution is the exclusive fact.

“Definition three” of evolution is natural selection, “The theory (acting upon genetic variations, such as mutation) has been the primary mechanism for the biological changes described in definitions one and two” (American Scientific Affiliation, 1996, p. 3, emphasis in the original). As documented above, definitions one and two are definitions of devolution, not evolution. Also as documented above, the alternative definition of evolution, abiogenesis, is so impossible it strains the imagination and must be classified as countless miracles. The superstructure of innumerable spontaneous generations, monogenesis, is countless multiples more impossible than abiogenesis and also must be classified as countless additional miracles.
For the sake of discussion, let us consider whether or not genetic variations, such as mutation, may in any way mitigate those extreme impossibilities. Evolutionists would have us believe that mutations will yield new and better life forms that will result in many different kinds of plants and animals, i.e. diversification, and a progression to higher, more complex life forms. To clarify that logic, let us select one example from an almost infinite number of thought experiments. Let us take the circuit board out of an AM radio, put on a blindfold, then put a finger on the board. To simulate a mutation, if the finger lands on a connection, break that connection or if the finger lands where there is no connection, then make one. Reassemble the radio and test its range of stations for reception. Repeat the process. If the radio increases its range of stations or improves its reception, then we conclude that mutations cause improved structure and function. Or if it becomes an FM radio, then the modifications mimicking random mutations succeeded in producing diversification. If the radio becomes a TV, then the mutations succeeded in producing the equivalent of an advanced life form. Contrarily, if the radio progressively degrades to the point of no longer working, then the mutations produced extinction. Obviously, there is no chance of obtaining a TV because the AM radio has no monitor and none of the other special parts and circuits that a TV requires. And like living things, the AM radio could not spontaneously generate all those special TV parts because that would violate the laws of physics. Obviously, there is no chance of obtaining an FM radio because the design, frequency modulation, is significantly different from an AM, amplitude modulation, radio and cannot be constructed by introducing mutations into an AM design. Obviously, the radio will degrade to the point of not working at all and that is consistent with all human experience. In all human experience, there is no analogous model to suggest that natural selection and genetic variations, like mutations, will cause diversity or increased complexity. There is no such experience with life forms, either. All human experience suggests that all things, especially the complex, nonviable and viable alike, degrade toward permanent extinction. With its genetic variations and mutations, natural selection accelerates extinction, not evolution. Let us next consider human mutations.

Mendelian inheritance in man is “ an encyclopedia of human genes and the disorders and other traits with which they are associated. It has been in creation and updating for over 35 years and has been computerized for most of that time. In addition to the print edition (Figure 1), it has been distributed online (OMIM) since 1987 and by compact disc (MIM-CDTM) since late 1993.” (McKusick, 1998, Vol. 1, xiii – xviii)

Apparently, this database in the National Center for Biotechnology Information at Johns Hopkins University is the best in the world for the current catalog of human genes and genetic disorders.

Figure 1. If evolution were true, these would be the medically
reported genetic disorders from 1966 to 1999.
These data are actually reversed. Like these data, evolution
is false.
Figure 2. McKusick: Mendelian Inheritance in Man,
Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999. The number
of medically reported genetic disorders in 1966 was
1,487. The number reported by 1999 was 11,099. A
curve of best fit has an R2 of 0.995. These data are evidence
of devolution.

Medically reported human genetic disorders have been cataloged in the above reference since 1966. If evolution were true, then we should observe a decrease in genetic disorders over time according to the first definition of evolution, change over time, and the third definition, natural selection. That means that the graph would look like the hypothetical Figure 1. The data in Figure 1 are actually reversed. Like those data, evolution is false. The true data are plotted in Figure 2. As can be seen, the trend is an exponential increase in medically reported genetic disorders. Beyond any doubt, the trend is devolution. The data thereby demonstrate that the ravages of time produce mutations that result in devolution, the exact opposite of evolution (McKusick, 1998, Vol. 1, xiii – xviii)

By 2031, it is estimated (R2 = 0.995) there will be 100,000 human genetic disorders and by 2096 1,000,000 (see Figure 3). “At least one clinical disorder has been related to 1,318 of the mapped loci (roughly 30%)” (McKusick, 1998, Vol. 1, xiii – xviii). That suggests genetic disorder saturation of each locus by 2031 and supersaturation by 2096. These data confirm human devolution and suggest imminent permanent genetic extinction in this century. That evolution cloaks imminent human extinction as biological progress, thereby militating against countermeasures until permanently too late, identifies evolution as the summit of criminality.
Evolutionists are aware of genetic disorders like the sickle cell allele, a red blood cell mutation. For example in recent biology textbooks we find, “The sickle cell allele confers an unexpected advantage in Africa,” (Johnson, 1998, pp. 128, 183) and “Why is sickle cell anemia so common in some regions . . . The answer to that question is a surprising lesson in evolution . . . That mutation conferred an advantage wherever malaria was common, and thus it was favored by natural selection” (Miller and Levine, 2000, p. 233). Evolutionists call it “a classic case of heterozygote superiority” because survival of heterozygous individuals in malarial regions of West Africa is 1.0 compared to 0.9 for individuals with normal homozygous hemoglobin. They gloss over the fact that survival for homozygous sickle-cell individuals is 0.2. Also glossed over is that the survival average for normal hemoglobin, homozygous plus heterozygous with the sickle-cell mutation, is 0.95 compared to the sickle-cell average of 0.6. Even in malarial environments, normal hemoglobin permits a survival advantage of at least 35% and of as much as 70% (Hartl and Clark, 1997, p. 251). In a non-malarial environment, there were 75,000 hospitalizations per year of 6.1 days with significant mortality. “Thus, sickle cell disease is one of the most prevalent genetic disorders in the US” (Ashley-Koch, Yang and Olney, 2000). The evolutionists’ classic case of biological superiority thus is filling hospitals and graveyards with the afflicted. The sickle-cell allele is genetic disorder-disease MIM – OMIM number 141,900 and such disorders have been increasing exponentially (McKusick, 1998, Vol. 1, xiii – xviii). This demonstrates that evolutionists choose to put at risk vulnerable students and their families rather than admit that mutations are genetic disorders documenting devolution, not evolution. Genetic disorders are reason for alarm and countermeasures, not wanton misrepresentation. Cloaking significant morbidity and mortality as biological progress called, evolution, identifies evolution as lethal antiscience.

Figure 3. McKusick: Mendelian Inheritance in Man,
Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999 with Extrapolation
to the Year 2096. The number of medically reported
genetic disorders in 1966 was 1,487, in 1999
11,099. A prediction equation 99.5% accurate suggests
100,000 human genetic disorders by 2031 and
1,000,000 by 2096. These data are evidence of devolution
and suggest imminent human extinction.
Figure 4. If evolution were true, these would be the percentage
of infant deaths attributed to birth defects in the
United States from 1916 to 1988. These data are actually
reversed. Like these data, evolution is false.

In 1997 from genetic testing, the estimate was that everyone on average carried six genetic disorders (Gargus, 1997). The extrapolation suggests that by 2033 the average for every man, woman and child may be 60 or more genetic disorders. The data indicate that the greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet is in progress in non human life forms at a rate of 30,000 extinctions per year and accelerating (Leakey and Lewin, 1996, Chapter 13; Mass Extinction References, 1998). The clear message is that mutations accelerate the permanent extinction of all life forms, including humans. There can be no greater imperative than educating students and parents to those facts. The lethal masquerade of portraying mutations as advantageous biological evolution must be extinguished before it brings the entire biosphere, including all of humanity, to permanent extinction. Cloaking the greatest mass extinction in the history of our planet as the biological progress called, evolution, identifies evolution as the most lethal antiscience in the history of our planet.

Data on fatal human birth defects may be found in the medical epidemiological teratology literature. If evolution were true, then we should observe a decrease in fatal birth defects over time according to the first definition of evolution, change over time, and the third definition, natural selection. That means that a graph of the medically reported fatal birth defects should look like the hypothetical Figure 4. The data in Figure 4 are actually reversed. Like those data, evolution is false. The true data are plotted in Figure 5. As can be seen, the trend in spite of medical advances is an exponential increase in fatal birth defects (Sever, Lynberg and Edmons, 1993). Beyond any doubt, the trend is devolution. By 2085, it is estimated (R2 = 0.967) there will be 100% human infant deaths attributed to birth defects (see Figure 6). That suggests that the genetic disorder saturation of each chromosome locus by 2031, and the supersaturation by 2096, will manifest 100% infant deaths from birth defects by 2085. These data agree with the genetic disorder data in confirming human devolution and in suggesting imminent permanent genetic extinction in this century. That evolution cloaks accelerating human birth defect mortality toward imminent human extinction as biological progress, thereby militating against countermeasures until permanently too late, adds additional evidence to the identification of evolution as antiscience at the summit of criminality.

Figure 5. Percentage of Infant Deaths Attributed to
Birth Defects in United States from 1916 to 1988. The
percentage of infant deaths attributed to birth defects
was 7% in 1916 to 1919 and rose to 20.6% for 1982 to
1988. These data are evidence of devolution.

 

 

Figure 6. Percentage of Infant Deaths Attributed to
Birth Defects in the United States from 1916 to 1988
with Extrapolation to 2085. The percentage of infant
deaths attributed to birth defects was 7% in 1916 to
1919, rose to 20.6 % for 1982 to 1988 and is expected to
be (R2 = 0.967) 100% by 2085. These data are evidence
of devolution and confirm imminent human extinction

The World War II crimes of the Nürnberg Trials can hardly compare to the slaughter of all humanity and the entire biosphere. Crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity are minor lapses compared to the extinction of all life forms. Not just scores of strains of millions of individuals ? surfeit enough in horror beyond imagining ? are at stake, but rather many millions of species and many billions of individuals. And if this historically greatest of all mass bioslaughters currently under way depletes the critical biomass for sustainable ecobalance, then the universe’s only known biosphere will erode irreparably to a barrenness as ghostly as the moon. No megacrime in the history of this planet, or of this universe, comes close to that summit of criminality.

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
According to the most generous mathematical criteria for evolution, abiogenesis and monogenesis are impossible to unimaginable extremes. The three definitions of evolution are disguised definitions of devolution to extinction. For the entire biosphere including all humanity, our planet currently is in the throes of the greatest mass extinction in its history. The tens of thousands of different life forms permanently extinguished each year are accelerating the depletion of the biosphere to the level where it permanently will no longer support human life because no new life forms can be created and none can be evolved. That evolution cloaks these mass extinctions and the imminent permanent extinction of all humanity as biologically advantageous is identified here as wanton, lethal antiscience at the summit of criminality. There can be no greater imperative for the educational and governmental institutions of the world than countering the greatest mass extinction in history as induced over the last 140 years by the evolution movement. As a first step for self defense against imminent permanent human and biosphere extinction, the lethal antiscience, evolution, must be expunged worldwide.

REFERENCES

CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly American Science Affiliation. 1996. A school board success story. American Science Affiliation science brief. ASA Newsletter, 38 (1): 1-4.
Ashley-Koch, A., Q.Yang and R.S. Olney. 2000. Hemoglobin S allele and sickle cell disease. American Journal of Epidemiology 151(9):839-845. Also a Human Genome Epidemiology (HuGE) Review, 5 August 1998.
Assmuth, J. and Ernest R. Hull. 1915. Haeckel’s frauds and forgeries. P.J. Kennedy & Sons, New York.
Becker, David R. 1999. The monera fallacy. Watchmaker 6 (2): 14-18.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin’s black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. Touchstone, New York.
Collodi, Carlo (Carlo Lorenzini). 1883. Le avventure di Pinocchio. Felice Paggi Libraio – Editore, Firenze. Note: The fairy with the turquoise blue hair animated the wooden marionette, Pinocchio, with the spirit of a boy, then later transferred that spirit into a spontaneously generated human boy. The discarded marionette in a corner became lifeless once more without a trace of the role it played in the abiogeneses of the boy. The parallels with the abiogeneses and the monogeneses of evolution are striking.
Constitution of the United States of America. 1787. Amendment I, “Restriction on Powers of Congress [Section 1*.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Ratified December 15, 1791. Note. This is frequently cited in legal cases as the Establishment Clause, the prohibition of a state religion, and in Civil Rights cases prohibiting prejudice against religion.
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. The blind watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. W.W. Norton & Co., New York.
Dembski, William A. 1998. The design inference:eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Denton, Michael. 1986. Evolution: a theory in crisis. Adler&Adler, Bethesda, Maryland.
Durant, Will. 1939. The story of civilization, the life of Greece. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Gargus, J. Jay. 1997 “Human genetic research, state of the science.” Session 4, October 13, Faith and science series, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church, Irvine, California.
Hartl, D.L. and A.G. Clark. 1997. Principles of population genetics. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
Humphreys, D.R. 1978. Using the Second Law more effectively. CRSQ 14: 209-210.
Johnson, G. B. 1998. Biology, visualizing life. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Austin, New York, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, Boston, Dallas, Toronto, London.
Johnson, Phillip E. 1993. Darwin on trial. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.
Leakey, Richard E. and Roger Lewin. 1996. The sixth extinction : biodiversity and its survival. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
Mass extinction references. 1998. http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html#anchor18171.
Mastropaolo, Joseph. 1999. Evolution is biologically impossible. Acts and Facts 28 (11): i-iv, Impact #317. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-317.htm. Institute for Creation Research, El Cahon, CA.
McKusick, V.A. 1998. Mendelian inheritance in man: a catalog of human genes and genetic disorders. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph Levine. 2000. Biology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Morowitz, H.J. 1966. The minimum size of cells. In Wostenholme, G.E.W. and M. O’Connor (editors), Principles of biomolecular organization, pp. 446-462. J.A. Churchill, London.
Rupke, N.A. 1971. A summary of the monera fallacy. In Walter E. Lammerts (editor), Scientific studies in special creation, pp. 169-183. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Sever, L., M.C. Lynberg and L.D. Edmons. 1993. The impact of congenital malformations on public health. Teratology 48 (6): 547-549.
Yockey, Hubert P. 1992. Information theory and molecular biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Mastropaolo 20 January 2001 #

EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Published in Acts and Facts 28 (11): i-iv, Impact #317, November 1999, Institute for Creation
Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cahon, CA 92021.

Charles Darwin was daydreaming when he wrote that he could visualize “in some warm
little pond,” with all sorts of salts and electricity, the spontaneous generation of the first living
cell.2 Darwin’s dream of the magical powers of salts and electricity may have come from his
grandfather. Mary Shelley in her introduction to Frankenstein reveals, “They talked of the
experiments of Dr. Darwin . . . who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some
extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion.” She goes on to speculate that
galvanism (electricity) was the extraordinary means.9 All theories need testing so I bought some
vermicelli pasta, kept it in salt water in a test tube for a month and never saw any motion,
voluntary or otherwise. I also used a tesla coil to conduct “galvanism” through it to a fluorescent
bulb. The bulb lit and the vermicelli eventually began to cook, but never came to life.

“ Darwin’s bulldog,” Thomas Huxley, had a vision of himself on the early Earth as “a
witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter.”6 In Huxley’s day, the cell
was blissfully considered simply a blob of protoplasm. Huxley also may have read Mary
Shelley’s subtitle to Frankenstein, “The Modern Prometheus.”Prometheus was the Greek
mythical Titan, who formed a man of clay then animated it. This myth may be the earliest
reference to abiogenesis, the animation of inorganic materials. In order not to leave that
possibility untried, I fashioned a clay man and directed the tesla coil spark over it to light the
bulb. The clay man was not animated.

Evolutionists currently invoke the “primeval soup” to expand the “warm little pond” into
a larger venue, the oceans. They aim to spontaneously generate the first cell so they must
thicken the salt water with (take a breath) polysaccharides, lipids, amino acids, alpha helixes,
polypeptide chains, assembled quaternary protein subunits and nucleotides, all poised to selfcombine
into functional cellular structures, energy systems, long-chain proteins and nucleic
acids.1 Then during an electrical storm, just the right mix of DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, cell
membranes and enzymes are envisioned in the right place at the right time and the first cell is
thunderbolted together and springs to life.5 That marvelous first cell, the story goes, filled the
oceans with progeny competing in incredible polysaccharide, lipid, amino acid, nucleotide and
cannibalistic feasts. The predators thereby thinned the soup to the watery oceans we have today
while the prey escaped by mystically transmuting themselves into the current complex animals
and plants, or perhaps vice versa because no one was there to record it. We are assured by the
disciples of Darwin and Huxley that the “once upon a pond” story to obtain a blob of
protoplasm is still sufficient for the spontaneous generation of the cell as we know it today. All
demur when asked for evidence. All balk when asked to reverse-engineer a cell in the laboratory
in spite of the fact that laboratories rival nature and reverse engineering is orders of magnitude
easier than engineering an original design. One wonders why they balk if cell stuff is so easily
self-generated and carbon molecules seem to have such an innate tendency to self-combine.

To test simply the alleged self-combining tendency of carbon, I placed one microliter of
India (lampblack) ink in 27 ml of distilled water. The ink streaked for the bottom of the test tube
where it formed a dark haze which completely diffused to an even shade of gray in 14 hours. The
carbon stayed diffused, not aggregated as when dropped on paper. At this simple level there is
no evidence that the “primeval soup” is anything but fanciful imagination.
In science, the burden of evidence is on the proposer of the theory. So although the
evolutionists have the burden of providing evidence for their fanciful tales, they take no
responsibility for a detailed account or for any evidence demonstrating feasibility. Contrarily,
they go so far as to imply that anyone holding them to the normal requirements of science is
feebleminded, deranged or evil. For example, Professor Richard Dawkins has been quoted as
saying, “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in
evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Instead of taking proper responsibility for the burden of evidence, the evolutionist propagandizes
by the intimidation of name calling.

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist’s burden of evidence to see where
it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based
largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the
microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by
mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the
microbiology, information theory and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat.
Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein
common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion.
The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion
has 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second
from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of
the way to completion. Yockey concluded, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is
impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in
probability.”10

Richard Dawkins agreed with Yockey by stating, “Suppose we want to suggest, for
instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery
spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an
extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not
exceed 100 billion billion to one.”3 The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins’ own criterion for
impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of
magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined
the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself
“ ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.”

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with
very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in
1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that
evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of
magnitude.4

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those
highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to
something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small
probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that
it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many
times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of
seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one
billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of
Small Probability.

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski’s one chance in 10150.
Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any
time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic
history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not
chance, as Dembski’s criterion and Yockey’s probability may prove it is not, then it must have
happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in
1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski’s criterion of one chance in 10150. The
simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they
would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000
proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,8 If these raw materials could be
evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-
cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell’s construction site, then we
may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That
probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has
4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the
evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that
standard.

Reproduction may be called a regularity because billions of people have witnessed billions
of new individuals arising that way, and in no other way, for thousands of years. The origin of
life was a unique event and certainly not a regularity. Therefore, according to the mathematical
logicians, the only possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate
design. The standard for impossible eliminated evolution so the only remaining possibility is that
life was designed into existence. The probability of the correctness of this conclusion is the
inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 104,478,296 chances to one.
Although the certainty of design has been demonstrated beyond doubt, science cannot
identify the designer. Given a designer with the intelligence to construct a cell and all life forms,
it is not logical that he would construct only one cell and leave the rest to chance. The only
logical possibility is that the designer would design and build the entire structure, the entire
biosphere, to specified perfection. That seems to be as far as science can go.
Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 104,478,296 (1
followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built
the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe. Primary and secondary sources
from history properly provide additional information on the Designer because the biological
sciences are not equal to that task .

REFERENCES

1 Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New
York: Touchstone, pp. 262-268.
2 Darwin, F., ed (1888) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London: John Murray, vol. 1, p. 83.
3 Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a
Universe Without Design, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 146.
4 Dembski, William A. (1998) The Design Inference:Eliminating Chance Through Small
Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5, 209, 210.
5 Denton, Michael (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler&Adler, p. 263.
6 Huxley, Thomas H. (1870) “Biogenesis and Abiogenesis” in (1968) Collected Essays of Thomas.H.
Huxley, vol. 8, Discourses Biological and Geological, New York: Greenwood Press., p.256.
7 Johnson, Phillip E. (1993) Darwin On Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p.9.
8 Morowitz, H.J. (1966) “The Minimum Size of Cells” in Principles of Biomolecular Organization,
eds G.E.W. Wostenholme and M. O’Connor, London: J.A. Churchill, pp. 446-459.
9 Shelley, Mary W. (1831) Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, London: Henry Colburn and
Richard Bentley, Introduction, p.9.
10 Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 255, 257.

BIOLOGY ELIMINATES EVOLUTION

© Joseph Mastropaolo 2003
Published as:
Mastropaolo, Joseph. Biology Confronts Evolution.
Acts and Facts 33 (2): i-iv, Impact #368, February 2004,
Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cahon, CA 92021.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-368.htm

Evolution pretends to be biology but it plays us for fools because it has no successful experiment. Let’s see if there is one scintilla of scientific evidence to support evolution. Most biology textbooks show a glass apparatus in which the precursors for amino acids are boiled and electrically sparked and after a week sure enough there are trace amounts of a few amino acids. The implication is that if the boiling and sparking were continued, then a living cell would evolve. Such logic is like stating that automobiles evolved billions of years ago by means of rubber sap, sand, iron ore, and coal falling into a volcano. The iron ore and the carbon in the coal made steel, the sand melted and made glass, and the sap vulcanized and made rubber. Then after billions and billions of trials and errors, the text may say, there evolved spontaneously better and better pistons, cylinders, whole engines with spark plugs and transmissions, axles on four wheels with rubber tires under bodies of steel with glass windows, windshield wipers, headlights, and tanks full of gasoline. The text might similarly state that the first cell and all life evolved in the same way. Scientists note that such a tall tale is a fantasy of a peculiar type. If someone said he had bought a brand-new car the night before and in the morning found it rusted and rotted to a pile of powder, then we would note that his story described correctly the direction of the laws of physics but rust and rot do not occur that fast. Contrarily, if he says that a pile of sand and iron ore evolved into a brand-new car, then we recognize this as an inverted fantasy because it is the exact opposite of the way reality works. So, the amino acid and volcano car examples are not merely fantasies, they are inverted fantasies. They are not the cow-jumped-over-the-moon kind of tall tale because cows can jump a low fence. They are the grass-ate-the-cow kind of tall tale, the inverted, upside-down kind of fantasy. One way that scientists reject tall tales is with observation. Scientists are persuaded by observing cars coming off the assembly lines in Detroit and note that no one has ever seen one spontaneously, nor purposefully, evolved in or out of a volcano. Scientists therefore
unequivocally conclude that all cars were created intelligently and by the similar observations so were all life forms.
But is biology sufficient to explain life or must it be supplemented by inverted evolutionary concepts to fully describe the biological world? Let us pursue this answer by examining the life cycle of a representative life form.

SURVIVAL BY MEANS OF GENETIC RESERVES

The monarch butterfly is a good illustration of biology because all observations can be
verified. Its whole life cycle is from one allotment of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and can be
observed in 60 days. The monarch butterfly egg is an oval about one millimeter long that hatches
in three days to a caterpillar which spins a chrysalis around itself then hatches as the butterfly.
Now it has the ability to fly twenty-four miles an hour while navigating a three-thousand-mile
migration with all the navigational equipment on board in the size of the head of a pin. Shortly
after completion of their reproductive functions, both male and female become dehydrated and
die.

UNIQUE SEQUENTIAL GENETIC RESERVES
The life cycle of the monarch butterfly teaches that in the seemingly inert egg are all of
the genetic instructions to form a sixteen-legged caterpillar and a six-legged butterfly. There was
no physical manifestation of the caterpillar when it was an egg just as there was no physical
manifestation of the butterfly when it was a caterpillar. There was a manifested morphology
while there were unmanifested in the organism’s genetic reserves meticulously planned
transitional structures and different morphologies. To observe such remarkable transformations
in 60 days teaches an important lesson on genetic reserves. These incredibly complex
transformations, which no human engineer can blueprint, may be called sequential genetic
reserves. They occur once in a rigorous order to attain adulthood and do not occur again. Every
complex organism has them. Some do not transform from sixteen legs to six legs, some do not
transform from pedestrians to flyers, but the transformations to adulthood are no less remarkable.
Every multicelled life form must grow and develop from an egg or seed to an adult configuration
and that requires continuous structural and functional alterations that are molecularly planned,
organized, coordinated, controlled, and commanded beyond human comprehension. We do not
know how the DNA did it, but we do know that such megengineering could not have been done
brainlessly the way evolution pretends. There are other kinds of genetic reserves.

PUNCTUAL AND PRECISE CYCLICAL GENETIC RESERVES

When the arctic fox has a gray coat of fur in summer, which blends with the tundra, it has
in its genetic reserve the white fur it will wear in winter. The fox’s white fur in winter blends
with the snow but its genetic reserve still contains the gray fur for the following summer.
Similarly, the rock ptarmigan draws from its genetic reserves to display feathers of mottled
reddish-brown in spring, then brownish-gray in fall, then white in winter. Trees leaf and bloom
in spring, fruit in summer, then drop their leaves in the fall. Birds nest and rear young in spring
and summer, then migrate in the fall. These periodicities are from the organism’s cyclical DNA
genetic reserves and go on repetitively for its lifetime with punctuality and precision. The fox has
white fur for the first snowfall, not the last, and gray fur for the first thaw, not a week or a month
later. And it never grows red or green or orange or blue fur by trial and error like evolutionists
would have us believe. If its cyclical genetic reserves were not engineered for precision and
punctuality, it could not survive one season.

PUNCTUAL AND PRECISE AROUSAL GENETIC RESERVES

Exercise in the heat arouses the genetic reserve to synthesize heat-shock proteins that
enable activity in the hot environment. Activity patterns arouse new proteins for muscle actin
and myosin contractile filaments. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and bradycardia are aroused from
training, and skeletal muscle atrophy and tachycardia from bed rest. An increased concentration
of red blood cells and 2,3-diphosphoglycerate are aroused by sojourns at high altitude, then lost
by a return to sea level. New collateral coronary arteries are synthesized in two months to get
around blocked arteries. New bone cells are aroused by fractures and new scar tissue from
abrasions, cuts or tears. These are but a few of the innumerable DNA genetic reserves manifested
by arousal that are built into each life form. They may be aroused in a matter of hours, not
millions of years. They cannot be incorporated by evolution because the organism cannot
experience what is needed until the event and it will not survive unless the need is immediately
satisfied. Vacant-minded evolution cannot plan or organize or coordinate or command or control
change because it is brainless. What is brainless cannot comprehend or act in what is complex to
the extreme: life and survival.

ALL GENETIC RESERVES FUNCTION AT ONCE

From conception to death, the DNA of the life form makes available as needed all genetic
reserves and there is no interference amongst them. For example, the life form may arouse
simultaneously the separate proteins for heat shock and altitude as it climbs a mountain in the
heat of the day as well as the proteins to withstand the bitter cold at night. Always at the ready,
the abundant genetic reserves may manifest themselves in any appropriate pattern at any time.
They provide each life form with remarkable arrays of morphological, functional, and behavioral
mechanisms to meet punctually and precisely the variabilities of any environment and to survive
the extremes. And they do it right the first time. They do not do it by magic or brainless iteration
over alleged millions of years, as the inverted brainless evolutionist superstition would have us
believe. If the arctic fox had to evolve its white coat for the first snowfall by brainless iteration, it
would not have survived one day. Like every life form, it needed the versatility, precision, and
punctuality of all its genetic reserves from conception or it would never have survived even to
being born.

ARE RESPONSE, ADAPTATION, ACCLIMATION, AND ACCLIMATIZATION EVOLUTION OR DESIGN?

If a person exercises, the heart rate will increase and this the evolutionists call, a
response. If a person trains for weeks with exactly that exercise, then the heart rate will be lower
than the initial response. That lowered heart rate for the same exercise the evolutionists call,
adaptation. If such a modified response is instigated by an environment, then it may be called,
acclimation. If in response to a change in climate, then it may be called, acclimatization.
Evolution misleads us because the immediate response is mediated by the autonomic nervous
system, which is an integral part of the individual’s design from its DNA. The modified response
is the revised expression of the individual’s ever-changing physiology as continuously modified
by the arousal genetic reserves. Those reserves continuously synthesize the appropriate new
proteins whether the stimulus comes from within, like the exercise, or from outside like the
climate or something else in the environment. By inventing four names, the evolutionists not
only mislead us but they also complicate what is in reality quite simple. The dynamic
physiological design takes care or everything. Evolution has nothing to do.

ARE THERE SPECIATION, MICRO AND MACRO EVOLUTION IN REALITY BIOLOGY?

Anyone can observe remarkable variation in biology. All brothers and sisters are
different. Even identical twins have different fingerprints and behaviors. The Chihuahua is not a
different species. It is a dog from breeding the runts of the litters. “Speciation” and “micro
evolution” are attempts to appropriate the immense variability of biology. All Chihuahuas
devolve and die but not one will ever evolve to a cat or a raccoon or anything else. So too
“ macro evolution,” the fictional extension of the micro evolution fiction, is the fraudulent
misrepresentation that has never been seen because it is an inverted fantasy like grass eating a
cow.

LIFE DESCRIBED SCIENTIFICALLY

As anyone can observe, the Primordial Law of Biology is minor vita ex vita, life arises
only from life and always with less vitality. Biology is under the jurisdiction of the laws of the
universe, the propaganda of evolution notwithstanding. The Primordial Law of the Universe is
natura semper scalas descendet, nature always descends, that is, devolves. Therefore,
devolution, never evolution, is the relentless, inescapable law of the universe. The true nature of
the universe, and therefore biology, is devolution, the exact opposite of masquerading evolution
interloping in public school and university biology textbooks.
The history of each individual in each generation is the same as for the population, but on
a smaller scale. The individual is conceived with its greatest vitality and progressively devolves
that vitality until death, that is, its extinction. Just as no individual can live forever, so no
population can live forever. All life forms individually and collectively are fixed and mortal.
From environmental pollutions that cause genetic disorders, populations lose their vitality
until they cannot reproduce viable offspring. That is the advent of extinction. By contrast, the
evolution superstition in biology textbooks is a multi-inverted fantasy because it not only teaches
that life can spring up like the volcano car but that life and the car can perfect themselves forever
like fictional perpetual motion machines.

CONCLUSION

As we have seen, biology is the best explanation of life. It is the most complete, the most
observable, and the most verifiable with experiments. There is no need to employ any of the
unnecessary, misleading, multi-inverted, and unobservable complexities of evolution
superstition. Biology completely eliminates evolution.

REFERENCE

Mastropaolo, Joseph. The Rise and Fall of Evolution, A Scientific Examination. 2003. Pp. 115-
123.

SCIENCE CONFIRMS THE BIBLE. SEE DOWNLOAD TOPICS-PDF, BIOLOGY ELIMINATES EVOLUTION AND CONFIRMS GENESIS 1-11.