as the earth’s rivers were millions of years ago. Of course, the earth was never that cold, but it didn’t matter because the earth’s landscape looked exactly like its current-day Titan counterpart (This is not a creationist joke; all Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) scientists interviewed by the journalists used this argument!). Now we all know where the straw man came from!
The third generation in effect sided with the first one by using the outdated Hegelian philosophical system mixed with astrology and black-and-white magic sprinkled with vital force. Will naked flights to the moon follow? Luckily, O’Keafe flew out of NASA pronto.
If anyone is to be credited with causing the most damage to NASA, and to science in general, that would be O’Keafe. On his watch NASA embarked on a journey to nowhere by developing extremely complex and costly equipment intended for the search of signs of bacteria on Mars. But not a single type of bacteria can exist outside the ecosystem, and there is none on Mars. O’Keafe wasted tons of money on useless equipment and on the small army of biologists he hired to participate in designing the equipment. As a result, the other, much more important projects were either put on hold or were underfunded. The most disturbing news was O’Keafe’s decision not to repair the Hubble telescope, thus effectively shutting it down. The astronomers and science buffs protested ever so loudly, but O’Keafe ignored their protests and went on a hunt for non-existant bacteria.
It’s over now, at least for O’Keafe; and the Hubble telescope will be repaired if the reports are correct. This is extremely good news for the spectators interested in true science. As for the third generation of evolutionists, they acted out of desperation because their pseudo-scientific theory is in the process of being destroyed.
Every time NASA makes a technological achievement its biologists claim that they are one tiny step away from proving that life in the Universe came to be as a result of an unknown biochemical reaction. The latest assertion is that this reaction occurred at the time of the big bang explosion, then some of the materials with a DNA-like structure were stored on comets that later hit the earth.
This theory is so pathetic that only a minimal amount of criticism is needed to bring it to its knees.
Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the theory is correct—a number of comets contain materials with DNA-like structures. Then there is the question, when were these materials created? There are two possible answers:
1) They were created after the creation of the elements of the periodic table.
But this leads to a previous discussion (see Appendix B), which shows that it is impossible to assemble DNA-like materials from the elements of the periodic table.
2) They were created at the same time as were the elements of the periodic table.
That was the time of intense X-ray radiation. Not a single DNA-like material can survive such extreme conditions without decomposing into its elemental ingredients—all radiation experiments prove it!
There is only one possible conclusion: DNA-like materials that brought life to the earth can survive under any condition. But if this were true, there would have been thriving civilizations on Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, etc.—all these planets were hit by the comets. But this is only half of the story—all earthling men and women, being descendants of the original super-cell, would have been able to walk through atomic explosions, jump out of airplanes without a parachute, drink volcanic lava as if it were a soft drink, etc., because they all are carriers of the imprint of the original super-cell. Who wants to be a Superman?
Often scientists working for NASA cite the famous Occam’s Razor principle as a “proof” that life somehow came to be by itself. It would be relevant at this point to take a close look at Occam’s Razor.
Occam’s Razor
This principle is also called the Law of Parsimony or the Law of Economy. In its original form the principle states the following: “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In other words, out of two or more competing theories the simplest one should be chosen.
There is nothing wrong with the principle; indeed, all major sciences follow it, or at least try to. But incorrect interpretations are abundant.
The statement is not unconditional; it contains ostensive conditions marked by the word “necessity.” Clearly, there are cases where an increase in plurality is unavoidable.
Consider, for example, the application of the principles of quantum mechanics to solid and liquid bodies. These principles alone are not enough. In the case of solid bodies, symmetry considerations reflecting the structure of the crystals are added to the basic principles of quantum mechanics. In the case of a liquid, the principles of quantum mechanics alone do not explain such phenomena as super-fluidity; Landau’s theory dealing with the mixture of two liquids with vastly different properties was put forward to explain this phenomenon.
It is impossible to assemble a material with DNA-like structure from the elements of the periodic table (again, see Appendix B), therefore the addition of a broader principle is, in the words of the Occam’s Razor, a necessity.
The principle is quite straightforward and easy to use; the possibility of misuse is minimal. But the evolutionists managed to misuse it because they are brain-dead.
13 : R. A. Fisher
Evolutionists claim that theoretical and experimental genetic data prove that the evolutionary theory is correct. Usually they site the works of R. A. Fisher. However, geneticists claim the exact opposite.
R. A. Fisher (1890–1962) was an outstanding British mathematician and geneticist. He is one of the two founders of the mathematical theory of statistics. However, none of his works or the works of other geneticists with a background in mathematical statistics deals, directly or indirectly, with the evolutionary theory.
Evolutionists often cite the famous Fisher theorem on the variance of species as a proof of validity of the evolutionary theory. Fisher’s variance theorem states the following: “The rate of increase in fitness of any organism at any time is equal to its genetic variance in fitness at that time.”
In the context of the Fisher theorem, variance is a mathematical term. This is how Webster’s New World Dictionary defines the square root of the variance called “deviation”: “a measure of the way items are distributed in a frequency distribution.”
There is plenty of empirical data that confirms Fisher’s theorem; one of the experiments is described in Encyclopedia Britannica.
This theorem has been confirmed experimentally. One study employed different strains of Drosophila serrata, a species of vinegar fly from eastern Australia and New Guinea. Evolution in vinegar flies can be investigated by using “population cages” and finding out how a population changes over many generations. Experimental populations were set up, with the flies living and reproducing in isolated microcosms. Single-strain populations descended from flies collected either in Popondetta, New Guinea, or in Sydney, Australia; and a mixed population was established by crossing these two strains of flies. The mixed population had the greater initial genetic variation, since it was started by combining two different single-strain populations.
Two results deserve notice. First, the mixed population had, at the end of the experiment, more flies than the single-strain populations. Second, and more relevant, the number of flies increased at a faster rate in the mixed population than in the single-strain populations. (Encyclopedia Britannica, CD-ROM 2001)
The Fisher theorem is correct—no doubt about that—but it has nothing
