MUSLIMS MIGHT PRACTISE TAQIYYA
... but our dear Darwin told lies too
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
To see the beautiful city of Paris self destruct is depressing. To hear French President Hollande say Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam is distressing. It’s sickening that our leaders resolutely refuse to identify an evil enemy within. So I’m going to clear my head of Islam this weekend and you can come along with me if you like to add your thoughts to what I believe is a vexing issue.
Watched a doco on Charles Darwin the other night and unfortunately it hardly scratched the surface of a deeply troubled man who wrestled with his and his family’s religious beliefs for twenty years before daring to publish his “Origin of Species”. He also was the victim of political correctness.
His masterly balancing of religious dogma and evolutionary theory ensured him of the establishment’s finance he desperately needed to continue his work. But Darwin’s thesis was flawed... and he knew it was.
A brilliant French redneck called Lamarck had figured out the evolution of species 50 years earlier.
Darwin should have lived to learn what we now know of genetics. Evolution is not simply natural selection, driven by the urge to survive, alone. Genetic make-up actually changes in one’s own lifetime. Incredible as it seems it now serves to complete the missing link in the Darwinian thesis. In fact, Darwin’s thesis now struggles to maintain relativity.
It is not incorrect, it has simply been overtaken, superseded. We, or at least some of us, know more now.
Darwin was brilliant and a century ahead of his time, struggling for answers without the concept of DNA. He was maligned and misquoted by creationists as they desperately clung to the implausible.
Darwin never once claimed we came from apes. His claim was that man and ape simply came from different branches of the same evolutionary tree. We evolved completely separately, as did many different species of ape with the chimpanzee swinging on the closest branch to ours.
Chromosomes are considered inviolable templates in the daisy chain of genetic make-up and cannot be altered except for Darwin’s laboriously slow “natural selection” process. Not true!
Changes or mutations to an existing gene or DNA can, will and do happen when a severe, or opted for, environmental change is preferred, required or forced upon it.
It’s quite simple really. If you rub your finger in one place for long enough a callous will appear. Why? Because your body will alter to a changing environment in order to protect itself. You didn’t demand it, it happened anyway, without any specific, protective, conscious instruction from you.
The question is: “How can this affect an abiding DNA structure?”
Well a callous on your finger won’t, but lose your sight and your tactile senses will increase markedly in an attempt to supplement your missing sense.
Continue to gulp down antibiotics and your immune system will falter. It’s no longer needed, so your body (not you, consciously) decides its resources are better spent elsewhere.
Practise holding your breath under water and, like a whale or other marine mammal, you will adapt to surviving without oxygen for longer periods.
Live in the heights of the Himalayas and you will survive for longer with less oxygen.
It was thought, until recently, that these changes were merely a temporary adaptation to an abiding condition and could not affect an existing genetic structure.
Will a Sherpa’s newborn have the oxygen efficiency of its parents? Will it? No, of course not, but it will have a genetic ability to adapt more quickly to oxygen efficiency, due to altitude, than a child born from parents who have traditionally lived at sea level.
So, is oxygen efficiency acquired, or is it hereditary? In dolphins it’s hereditary, because natural selection over billions of years has perfected the dolphin. And as long as it continues to naturally select, it will remain perfectly attuned to its environment. It has no need for mobile, genetic mutation. We land-based beings do have a need due to the violent volatility of our environment.
All dolphins share oxygen efficiency. Not all humans do. So, where and when did the oxygen-efficient human begin to evolve? Obviously it was environment driven, not selection driven! In the process of natural selection the queen bee will climb to a height where only the strongest drone can reach her. I doubt the female Sherpa does the same.
Darwin, although a flexible thinker, theorised that genetic alteration could only be affected by selection. He, understandably, knew little of DNA and its importance. He attempted to rationalise it but settled for ‘natural selection’. In other words his basic thesis was this:
If an elephant shagged a horse, the offspring would be a bigger horse or a smaller elephant.
Outrageous and impossible of course, because of disparate, genetic incompatibility and inherent risk of sterilisation, but true for the sake of the argument.
The resultant smaller elephant would have severe ankle problems and not attract breeding. Likewise the larger horse would be easily caught by predators with its short trunk impeding its gait. Neither would participate in any further ‘natural selection’ process because the female of either original species (the decision-maker of who shags who) would be fearful for the welfare of her potential offspring. Neither would be the ‘attractive’ of its species.
Now let’s superimpose on Darwin’s natural selection thesis the fact that a genetic code, those signature helixes, can change or mutate in one’s own life-time due to stress of environment.
Now we have a whole new ball-game.
The process of evolution does not now depend solely on natural selection. (It never did.) Evolution is now drastically contracted to a much smaller time-frame in its desperate attempt to quickly adapt its species to a rapidly changing environment. The proof that we do adapt that quickly is all around us.
Natural selection never really held water as a sole explanation because it is, of necessity, too slow and too perilous.
We have moved far too quickly to rely on the veracity of that thesis and we have evolved, and continue to evolve, ever more quickly than is possible solely via natural selection.
Look at it this way, Asians hate being dark (only because they are dark) and Europeans hate being pale (only because we are pale). Asians go to extreme lengths to avoid the sun. Their idea of skin beauty is porcelain whiteness. They cover their faces and bodies from the sun, yet they are historically more sun-tolerant than the Europeans.
Their paintings of women are of pronounced Asian features but show stark white complexions. Our idea of skin beauty is a healthy looking Aussie suntan. If we don’t have one, we buy bottles of suntan lotion or traipse to the solarium yet, in a paltry 200 years, Australians are on average, many shades darker than we were as original emigrating Europeans.
The Europeans who stayed home stayed pale. We humans have an irresistible urge to be what we ain’t.
In a mere fifty years we are now taller. How can this be?
How have we become darker and taller in such a short time-frame? Is it solely due to natural selection? Is it solely that the suntanned blonde ‘naturally selected’ the suntanned lifesaver, because her offspring would be better able to cope with the fierceness of the solar rays?
Many say the reason for our rapid increase in height is a better diet. Bullshit! Certain people ate well a thousand years ago and stayed small. The wealthy aristocracy simply got obese, not taller. There were many periods of plenty but no surges in average height. Royalty, with the very best of foods always available to it, is still smaller than average.
Did we really depend solely on natural selection for our evolutionary process? I don’t think so.
If this were so, it would have taken millions of years to become taller or change to a darker colour because our original genetic make-up, our DNA, would have been unchangeable, except for the hit and miss, time-consuming process of natural selection. Like everything else in life it is flexible, adaptable and extremely sensitive to the essential, and even chosen, environmental vagaries.
How long did it take for a baby to adapt to drinking on its back and then adapt once again at the age of 12 months to where it will choke if it tries to do so? How many million years are behind the evolution of that little process?
How long did it take for us to decide our coccyx (tail bone) should no longer support an unnecessary tail?
There is one fatal flaw in the natural selection process: It involves all the eggs being in one basket. Females are impregnated by the one ‘winning’ male and it depends solely on that ‘winning’ male being not only the most environmentally suitable but the best breeder. It is often a misguided choice.
The ‘winning’ male may be genetically flawed or even infertile.
How can the female have foreknowledge of this? She can’t demand a sperm count. She is committed to selecting only the ‘winner’.
Generations are lost or genetically disadvantaged forever. The loser may have carried the perfect genetic code. But no-one can know this. He did not get to breed! The expected ‘improvement’ in the ensuing generation may not eventuate. In fact it could be as catastrophic as the plight of the doomed, inbred cheetah.
That flawed gene could be carried on forever, risking extinction of a whole species. This process is laborious and hazardous. Bets are hedged but winnings are small when males and females take the alternative option and simply pair off, and even pairing off requires a prior competitive ritual.
When males compete for the right to breed there can be massive genetic enhancement in one generation, reflected in all future offspring, or total demise.
For example, the racehorse has been bred by us for over 2,000 years. It was bred from only five original broodmares. Racehorses do not run much faster now than they did then, so one can presume that the breeding process is more one of culling the weakest simply to maintain the current status quo.
The problem is that the strongest racehorses can be disasters in terms of breeding. And they have been. The weakest can be the best breeders. And they have been.
The strongest can have the lowest sperm count. But how can the stud owner know this? Well, he orders the vet to do a sperm count but the mare in the wild can’t do that. She believes her best chances lie with the strongest, but she can be very wrong.
It’s a game of averages. It will improve over a dozen generations only to fall back to square one in one generation. Even with the aid of sophisticated computer-generated breeding programs for
racehorses, we still get it all wrong. It’s still hit and miss.
What chance has the wild horse? None! And it shows.
This is natural selection in its raw essence. One step forward, two steps back, three steps forward…! The strongest can be impotent and/or carry faulty throw-back genes! The weakest can conceal the strongest of ancestral genetic codes, but those codes will never come to light.
If a domestic cat turns feral it will increase to the size of a dog in one year. If it doesn’t, it will die. When it breeds with another large feral cat, will the litter of kittens be small domestic kittens that will have little chance of surviving either the environment or other wild animals? Or will they be slightly larger, slightly more aggressive, competitive, and predatory?
After all, both parents are larger than domestic cats and each has all those attributes? Yet the parents weren’t born that way.
I stumbled on a litter of wild kittens when I was fencing. They snarled and spat at me. Why did they do that? Domestic kittens don’t do that. Their parents were born domestic cats with the correct, incumbent genetic structure of a domestic cat.
These kittens were not domestic. They were wild cats and fully prepared to deal with whatever threatened them and they would quickly grow to the size of their parents.
If this is so, then there has certainly been positive genetic change, mutation and mobility in the parent cats’ own life-time, and it has been passed to the young.
And if THAT is so, “natural selection” as a lone thesis is flawed!
And if it is NOT so, then natural selection played no part anyway. Both feral parents started life as domestic cats and genetic mutation was forced upon them only by environment, not natural selection! As is the free diver who can descend to 130 metres without oxygen, and the Sherpa who can ascend to 7,000 metres without oxygen.
The cats mutated prior to natural selection having any role and therefore any impact.
Giraffes have not grown taller in fifty years because they haven’t needed to. Regular droughts ensure long necks remain long.
Crocodiles have stayed the same. If they had needed to change via natural selection, it would have taken millions of years to alter a giraffe or a crocodile, or any other species, and they would have risked extinction in the process as does the okapi in its suicidal attempt to vary a species. But we, like feral cats, have altered in a very short time-frame, fifty years, and we have done it without tampering with biotechnics or listening to whimpering bioethicists complaining of cloning and stem cell manipulation.
The doorways in London pubs, that were built a mere 300 years ago, were built for small people… we now need to stoop to pass through. The gallant knights of old were severely vertically challenged, or “little buggers”. Stand beside a suit of armour! It is said this rapid growth is due to our improved diet.
The problem with that theory, as I said before, is that it still doesn’t explain why ancient inbred aristocracy and royalty (who historically had the choice of all the best foods) are still, on average, smaller!
For natural selection to have sole integrity, the woman with her subliminal wish for the success of her offspring would have always selected the taller, stronger male. But “tall” is comparative. When the whole population is “short”, “tall” will still be short in today's terms.
The taller, stronger male is not as important as he once was... we no longer survive by brute strength. Today intellect is more likely to attract females.
It is hard to fathom the depths of the repercussions of a changing DNA in one’s own life-time. It is a cataclysmic concept and explains the formerly inexplicable, yet there is still pig-headed scientific resistance to the concept of an environmentally altered or mutated genome being passed on. And logic dictates it must be passed on for such rapid alteration to be possible.
The oceans’ beings must also have the ability to change an abiding DNA in their lifetimes, but they don’t, or rarely do, because it is rarely necessary.
The oceans are a safe womb supporting many times more species than the harsh land can ever support. Evolutionary change is natural and forced by breeding and predation but, in the absence of environmental change, marine life, as with sharks, only needs to rely on natural selection, in its slow, basic form.
If we had kept killing whales they would have bred from faster whales and those who were more oxygen efficient.
Darwin must turn in his grave at the enormous implications. The fact remains that a white person who grows darker due to a changed environment will produce slightly darker offspring.
The hitherto, environmentally unaffected offspring has been indelibly and genetically moulded by the environmentally altered DNA of its parent. (As in the case of the feral cat, the Sherpa, many other species and us.) The offspring will do the same for its offspring. Thus the compounding speed of the change.
The offspring who can’t adapt in time will die. Then Darwin’s natural selection takes over. They won’t breed if they are dead and, even if
they live, they will not attract breeding because they will appear to the other sex as environmentally unsuitable.
There is only one way these sudden changes in our evolutionary process can happen, that is via mobile, genetic mutation.
Evolution is natural selection overlaid with dynamic genetic mobility. Without this layer of genetic mobility, we on land would all be dead. If genetic mobility is obvious in certain cases then it is certainly happening to a smaller degree in all cases both on land and (to a much smaller degree) in the oceans.
The fact is that Darwin’s theory, as a sole explanation, has been blown out of the water, but no-one seems to have noticed. No-one seems to discuss it. No changes to school curricula. There are no headlines in the media. No new books. No Discovery Channel doco. Yet it necessitates the most profound change ever in the concept of our origins.
Darwin was a smarter man than me but I, and everyone else, now know more than Darwin ever knew and we have had longer to think about it. Darwin may have discovered the wheel, but the wheel is now the motor car.
The evolution of man is an exciting, complex array of fascinating possibilities and theorems. The fact that man invented all sorts of religions to evolve along with him is what stymies his own creative thinking. Creative thinking has been outlawed through the ages. Mainly by Christian churches who felt they had to protect the dictums of a flawed bible.
Fifty years before Charles Darwin was born, Jean Baptiste Pierre de Monet Lamarck tantalisingly flirted with genetic mobility. He proposed, theoretically, that pressure on muscle or bone (and therefore I suggest he meant organs and all tissue) could be passed to offspring.
Darwin knew Lamarck’s theory well and even reluctantly embraced it for a period. But he felt the theory was anathema to his natural selection theory because it appeared to render it unnecessary. It did not!
Nonetheless, Darwin may have known more than he let on. He was fearful. He was mercilessly ridiculed by creationists and the Church itself bore down on him heavily. Much of his writings appeared to curiously cosset doubts that allowed the establishment room to breathe.
In the end, even the creationists must have made room in their hearts to entertain his theories because, against his will, he was afforded a religious State funeral.
So, was Darwin right? Yes, but not completely. Was Lamarck right? Yes, but not completely. If only the two had been born at the same time they would surely have conspired together to complete the puzzle.
The tragedy still haunts us. The answer was, and will always be, a combination of both theories, each critically integral to the other. Alone, there remained a gaping hole in each that allowed exploitation by fools.
Natural selection is as real as is genetic mobility. Each plays an essential role in our, and all living things’, existence.
Lamarck’s proposal was that new traits develop in organisms to meet the needs of their environment. Even tho’ Darwin cited Lamarck as a major influence on him he rejected this proposal. “It is not the demands that draw out the traits”, argued Darwin; “rather, the organisms already in possession of the necessary traits survived.” Why did he say that? Lamarck was right, Darwin was so obviously wrong.
Organisms simply could not have the sophistication necessary to carry traits they may not need. They are simple cells. So it could only be those that adapted quickly enough that survived. Organisms mutated due to the pressure of environment and that mutation developed a new, more resilient strain, as with all forms of evolution and those changes were eventually passed on.
This is where it gets interesting. Darwin surely had to have understood this. He was a brilliant man and he must have known this. It did not fly in the face of his natural selection theory at all. It was simply an etage, an overlay, that enhanced his theory.
Darwin craved acceptance and suffered ridicule. He found it necessary to pander to the upper class to survive. Lamarck did not. So if Darwin was a student of the brilliant larrikin Lamarck, then the only conclusion that can be reached is that Darwin publicly embraced theories that he did not embrace in private.
The most blatant example of this is when he published a second edition of ‘The Origin of Species’ with references to a deity's involvement. For God’s sake, what was he thinking? “The Origin of Species by the Hand of God”? What disingenuous cowardice! He had capitulated to the establishment in the most disgraceful way. He sold out to all those who had the balls to stand by him. This was the price of financial backing and peer acceptance?
Darwin backed away from his findings in so many ways. “My theories are but a starting point for those who come after me”, he said. He refused to take full responsibility for what he knew was true. He feared derision. His family had suffered enough and the pain on his face was evidence of this.
Darwin became a reluctant pet of the upper class through sickening diplomacy. Lamarck did not reach the heights of respect that Darwin eventually enjoyed because he was read by the European working class. He said it in crude French, the way it was, without care for the educated aristocracy and its religious hackles. Lamarck spurned fame and finance.
So we must wonder if Darwin really did turn in his grave at latter revelations or was there simply a wry smile on his face.
There is a bloke called John Steele who was recently sacked from the Wollongong University, as a professor, for professing genetic mobility. I do not know him and I have tried in vain to contact him. You are not alone Mr Steele. I was expounding and defending this theory to deaf ears when you were in nappies.
Genetic mobility! Yes! I can hear geneticists and biologists shaking their heads.
Well, break out of the educative mould that constricts your intellectual flexibility! The books and lectures you absorbed in university were wrong!
Your fixation with the regurgitated sameness of minds was misplaced, as it has been with all our historical learning.
You, the intelligentsia, are the last to discover! You are too engrossed in learning that which has already been ‘learnt’ and learning and discovery are poor bedfellows.
Trammeled academic ruts are packed with your students perpetuating your innocent falsehoods, falsehoods so ingrained in the educational process that to deign to question is heresy.
Truth and true discovery are not found in halls of learning.
Research is not truth. Research is dishonored by those who set out to prove their already-held convictions or by those who finance it for profit.
Halls of learning merely hypothesise, they dissect and support that which is already accepted as truth.
The rare, true academic claws his bleeding fingers at the sides of the rut, enduring derision. He flings his aching mind into places there are no footprints, fertile places where only the brave dare to tread.
Until at last truth emerges and vilification is softened by recognition.
The suffering stops temporarily while yet another tributary of the same rut commences to evolve. But it hurts. It’s a painful process.
“But isn’t that the way of all discovery?”