The Other Version: The Folly of Darwinism
During the late 1500’s and stretching well into the 1800’s, the field of science consisted of a lot of theorists and empiricists, all vying for fame, and new discoveries. It is easy to forget science is often affected by the philosophy of the observer.
The “theory of evolution” is one of those scientific assertions, which falls into a category just above blind speculation, we might call pseudo-science. This category is also populated by dead end sciences like Eugenics and Phrenology. The Darwinist theory of evolution, which we shall call Darwinism from here on, is very much influenced by Jewish culture, though few will admit it.
Most people we call “Jews” today, are not related one bit to those referenced in the Bible or Torah, they are a small number of intellectual exiles from the Babylonian empire, mixed with a lot of Khazarian converts in the Caucuses region. This is significant only in that much of Europes Jewish intellectuals come from this particular tribal soup, as most of the Middle-Eastern Sephardic Jews had already been driven out, or forced to convert to something else, leaving a vacuum.
It would have been a time of chaos and destruction that allowed strong leaders to quickly seize power, that created the conditions for Khazaria to flourish. The Khazars were at some point a kingdom of khanates, not unlike the Mongol empire that swept deep into Europe, and their empire was destroyed or dissolved around the time the Turkic Tatars moved into the region, though many of the people there already had Turkic origins themselves. It is remnants of these Crimean Tatars that later sided with the Nazis against the primarily Jewish-led Communists. It is interesting to see how seemingly unimportant tribal history can affect world politics centuries later.
Not too much is known about how the Khazarian empire fell, or specifically what happened to Judaism in the region, but we can draw parallels from other invasions. What is most likely, is that since the Khazarian kingdom converted to Babylonian Talmudic Judaism, which we know was done top down, that is to say the leaders declared all the people will officially convert, that any subsequent replacement of that leadership would just as likely expunge the conquered region of most Judaism.
This happened in Hungary, where we know the ruling class of Magyars, intellectuals, land owners, monarchs, were in the minority, according to genetic studies, and we know it was the rulers who declared the country shall be Catholic. Likewise we know in Egypt several millenia earlier, where Pharaoh Akhenaton had attempted to convert his Egyptian Kingdom to monotheism, but the lands quickly reverted to polytheism after his death. People are people, no matter where they are, and which gods they prayed to wasn’t all that critical to most. It is guaranteed that the majority of people would have just converted to something else, in this case Islam, if pressured to do so. Islam has maintained a strong presence in the region ever since.
Why this is important is twofold. It seems that being converts, with very few of direct Middle-Eastern Jewish lineage, these new breed of Jews were more pragmatic, more nomadic, and less dogmatic. Thus we can be pretty sure that only the most diehard Khazarian Jews who would have refused to convert to Islam, or revert to paganism, and they would have been the ones who migrated westward into north and central Europe. It might also have instilled yet another cultural shock, and a sense of vengeful anger towards other peoples, that wasn’t as prevalent amongst Mesopotamian or Yemenite Jews.
Since the territory covered by the Khazarian empire extended farther west than the Tatars eventually controlled, the Tatars stopping around Crimea, the largest settled populations in the Ukrainian basin would have almost certainly stayed put. This is why there were so many of these “Jews” living in Poland and Ukraine until World War 2, and why the Bolsheviks were so intent on reuniting with them. Which is again a very similar story to how the Mongols demanded the return of the Bulgars from the Hungarian empire, after the Hungarians knights had briefly pushed them back. Civilians have been used as pawns in territorial and political disputes for all of recorded history, because tribalism is a powerful ideology.
If we step back a bit to focus on the people themselves, and examine what this tapestry of history would do to the now European Jewish culture, it wouldn’t be very speculative to say it was crushing, dispossessing even. According to their oral traditions, the Jewish peoples were kicked out of their notional homeland by god as punishment, but this theme wouldn’t really apply to converts the same way. The Khazarian Jews had a homeland, with a standing army, something the Jewish people didn’t have for over a thousand years; they didn’t earn it, nor did they conquer it as Jewish people, but they were kicked out of it all the same, by humans this time. It isn’t a stretch to conclude that any Khazarian exiles would have been small in number, primarily the intellectual elites, and would have looked at new ways to preserve their ideas and values, while they try to rebuild their population elsewhere. New ways that would have preferred infiltration and subversion over confrontation. In hindsight, we can also see how they influenced the economic and legal systems of their host nations, to prevent any persecution, until the Nazis nearly stopped them cold.
It was this new tribe of the Talmud that spawned many secret societies, focused on intense tribal loyalty, occult rituals, and even some very Satanic off-shoots. It was this new diaspora that created the German-Jewish banking power base, which spread to France and England with the Rothschilds and Warburgs, and later around the world. They also managed to create a large presence in the shipping and merchant industries, by marrying the daughters of successful merchants to Rabbis, linking the new European Jew to nearly every industry. It is during this time when Jewish “evolution” really took off, spawning some weird and perverse ideologies, loosely based on tribal thinking, the idea of cultural or ethnic supremacy, and twisted Talmudic logic, which basically concludes that everything is relative. And while we could digress in any number of directions, this story is about evolution…The Dissent of Man
In comes Darwin with his ape-man theory. In an academic environment rich with religious rejection, amoral scientific studies, and revolutionary spirits, this was both shocking, and surprisingly welcomed. The biological change wasn’t so much the problem, but rather the philosophical conclusions drawn by Darwin and his followers, that evolution favours the strongest, that it isn’t random. It wasn’t Darwin himself that declared evolution is the “survival of the fittest”, yet it was that catchphrase that stuck ever since. There’s only one problem, it is almost entirely wrong.
At the time, the field of study wasn’t populated by many students, who could have assailed Darwin’s actual observations, to soundly dispute the conclusions on a technical level. Most of the objections to Darwinist evolution theory was from the generally accepted view that mankind is not an animal, that we are special. This is of course an idea in many cultures, and a core tenet of the Abrahamic religions, which most of the “civilized world” followed. Their objection came down to their abhorrence to having a monkey as an uncle. Their very godly image was suddenly in question! Oh the heresy!
While Darwinism may be incorrect about the mechanics, the truth is hidden in plain sight. To correctly figure out the riddle of evolution, one has to ask the right questions, something Darwin had failed to do, because of his cultural bias. Tribalism, and therefore tribal supremacy is a core theme in Judaic religions, they believe they are god’s chosen people, which by default, makes everyone else not-chosen people, or simply lesser. Some Jewish scholars will argue this point with tortured logic and tongue-in-cheek references to the Torah, especially the commandments produced by Moses, but it is all misdirection.
There is no way to square equality with supremacy, some can’t be “more equal than others” as George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm. It is tribalism or racism at it’s finest to believe evolution favours the best, because by that logic, the ethnic cleansing of a country would be perfectly acceptable. This kind of thinking is incompatible with compassion and morality, or even the very laws of Moses. It also doesn’t reserve space for accidents or even co-existence. This is why Darwin couldn’t see it, though he later alluded to this paradox in his books, without actually resolving it.A Reaction to Stress
Let’s say you believe evolution happens, that it is a natural process, and has managed to produce amazing things, but you reject Darwinism, then what you need is an alternative mechanism to replace it. Asking the right questions actually points you right at the multi-faceted answer, that there is more than one mechanism, and there is very little consistency between the paths of apparent competitors. The very existence of the oddball giraffe, more or less proves, that not every animal is willing to adapt the same way, to the same problem.
The first question we need to ask, is what advantage does the colour of a birds belly or crest have to do with success? There is only two possible answers, since it is entirely a visual cue, it has to be related to visibility. The first possibility is that it serves as camouflage against predators/rivals, which could even be colour-blind. In this scenario, an orange tabby cat actually blends well into green-brown underbrush at night, which could be useful, as would brown, so why don’t we see brown cats? The second possibility is the visibility to a potential mate, like a peacock which has the most ornate tail imaginable. In this scenario, if the bird is yellow crested, and the island it inhabits has only yellow flowers, this could be a drawback, but it wouldn’t favour having a red crest, over a blue crest, over a green crest. We can therefore rule out camouflage and attractiveness as the primary evolutionary driver in a large number of cases. We can also safely apply the same reasoning to the sounds an animal makes, or the colour diversity of plant life.
The next question to ask is where do we see or encounter the most evolutionary change? We know that isolated places like Hawaii, that are relatively recent volcanic constructs, far away from any landmass, now have rich and diverse ecosystems, which we can be sure originated with a small number of invasive species. Scientists have been studying Hawaii’s plant and bird diversity for a long time, and have generally concluded that only a handful of bird species managed to find their way to the island, or were brought there by early seafarers thousands of years ago, and it was this handful that diversified into dozens of new species, some of which have gone extinct since. Looking at Hawaii specifically, we can see that great opportunity and great stress, on small populations, encourages rapid evolution, measured in as little as centuries.
We could then ask, what factors conspire to limit the evolution of species? Three are many species that remain largely unchanged for many many millions of years, the obvious ones that come to mind: turtles, crocodiles, and sharks. One of those is a grazer, one is a coastal predator, and one is a deep sea predator, each with its own habitat, its own food source, and very little physical similarity. What can we rationally conclude about them? They are all long lived, with slow metabolisms, and long periods of low energy output, which suggests they are good at surviving with little food, but suggests nothing about their slow evolution, since we bipedal apes evolved faster, and we have similar lifespans. Drawing from this, we can infer that large populations with long lifespans, evolve more slowly. If this is the case, that would make the relative success of a species into it’s own evolutionary inhibitor, and increase the risk of it going extinct with a drastic environmental change. Interestingly, the much higher birthrate of crocodiles relative to sharks doesn’t seem to be a factor, since arguably crocodiles have evolved more slowly, and neither has many natural predators (humans don’t count for this exercise) of consequence.
We can even look at the role resilience or population fluidity has on the long-term success of a species. One example of this is the population of lions in Africa, where a combination of drought and canine distemper recently killed an estimated 70% of some of the largest prides. The prides almost fully recovered in numbers in less than 3 years, because of high birth rates, and short gestation periods. There are also examples were a few dozen wolves were re-introduced to national parks around North America, with the aim of controlling runaway populations of beavers, deer and other vegetarians; they quickly exploded to hundreds of wolves, in dozens of packs, each with distinct hunting grounds. When the prey animals started thinning out, predator populations dropped to match, they balanced out. For many species, their success is therefore inseparably linked to the survival of many other species in the region, which doesn’t really sound like an advantage at all. The same balancing act doesn’t apply to all species equally either, some species don’t have a regulation mechanism until all the food is exhausted. It is possible to be too good, or too efficient a consumer.
We also need to examine what role Darwin’s fitness-for-purpose actually plays in evolution, don’t we? This one is the trickiest to answer, because there are so many species that ratchet up and down in size, or numbers, as the environment permits, while not meaningfully changing. The best example of this is insects. No one much cares to think of insects, but they evolve really slowly considering how short each generation is, often only a few days, and how many trillions are alive at any given moment. We have fossil records of insects, and others preserved in petrified tree-sap from tens of millions of years ago, which have shown strikingly little change with modern insects of the same species or genotype, while the biggest difference was size. The size variance is simplest to explain. Insects have a passive breathing apparatus unlike us humans, they have tubes that allow tiny pockets of air to exchange throughout their bodies, and it is the concentration of oxygen in the environment they live, that dictates how large they can grow. Thus when oxygen levels were a good 10% higher than today, such as during the time of the dinosaurs, dragonflies were able to grow several feet long. The same is true for the tarantulas that grow to be a foot in long in the Amazon rainforest, where the rich vegetation increases available oxygen locally during the day, everywhere else they manage less than half of that. Comparing insects to animals, we can clearly see that evolutionary stresses don’t apply equally, if at all. Insects dominate with numbers not fitness. You just can’t kill ’em all.
Then we need to question the role sex, and the method of reproduction plays in evolution. Perhaps the most uncomfortable topic in previous centuries, fertilization and sexuality are a crucial part of why some species evolve quickly, while others barely seem to have evolved at all. This should be as obvious as it gets. Humans share chromosomes to average out flaws, meaning any genetic damage or mutation, has 1/4 chance to be passed on from a grandparent to child. This gene-sharing can be particularly useful in complex multi-cellular organisms, especially ones constantly exposed to toxins or infections, but has no importance for a uniform cluster of bacteria, or fungus. There is no benefit for a mushroom to have an immune system, or any gene-sharing methods with nearby mushrooms of the same species. Scientists estimated that there was a period, anywhere from 50 to 100 million years, after what we call trees had colonized land, before a fungus evolved that could digest the strong fibers in it. It is that absence of fungal degradation that ensured forests grew directly on top of dead trees, compacting the old wood, for millions of years, which is what created all those coal deposits we mine today. Why did it take fungus so long to figure this out? It has to come back to accidental mutation, because fungus doesn’t have sex. We can then reasonably conclude that species which have sex, where multiple organisms are required to produce offspring, are more inclined to evolutionary changes, as the very incidence of a mutation spreading, is greater.
Lastly, we can ask, just what are the methods that produce evolutionary change, or to be more precise, what methods change dna? This one is fairly easy to answer, but often ignored by people subscribed to the Darwinist theory. There is genetic mixing by way of sexual fertilization, there is random mutation, viral injection of dna, and even lateral gene transfer. If you were to ignore lateral gene transfer, you’d be ignoring probably half of the evolution that took place. We also can’t eliminate virii as an important factor. There are microscopic animals called tardigrades, they look like a wrinkly potato with legs, they have survived being frozen on the outside of the ISS space station, and survived the intense radiation as well. They are in many ways, one of the most resilient creatures on Earth, and they are the product of over 1300 other species, due primarily to lateral gene-transfer. That means those little “water bears” evolved by absorbing genetic material from plants, animals, bacteria, and who knows what else. Obviously a lot of these genetic hybrids were fit enough to survive, but could we really conclude that the absence of some of these gene-transfers would have had a drastically negative effect on their competitiveness? I don’t believe so.The Theory of Non-supremacy
Can a Darwinist conclude lichen is the best design it can be, or that the slower bee with the suicidal sting is better than the wasp? How fit were the dinosaurs if an unlucky meteor wiped them out, but not mammals and birds? What makes a giant hairy vegetarian like a bison succeed, while another giant hairy vegetarian like a mammoth didn’t. Life is full of contradictions to the Darwinist view of evolution, we can see it everywhere. This isn’t to say Darwin’s theory is universally wrong, there are indeed some cases where evolutionary pressure does favour one or more given traits exclusively, but it happens in a relatively narrow subset of circumstances, to only select species, at a given time.
Answering the above questions, we can draw a more thorough picture of how evolution really works. We can make broad conclusions about when adaptation is less important, or when evolution is most likely to occur, then work backwards. We can be sure that sometimes evolution is not important at all to the survival of the species, and sometimes it is. We can probably all agree that luck has just as much to do with which specimens survive, luck is one of the primary reasons that mankind exists today.
There is plenty of evidence that evolution happens most rapidly in small populations, under stress. Those evolutionary stresses could be predatory pressure, a scarcity of food, a missing or deficient nutritional content in available food, temperature fluctuations, etc. There are so many factors for life to adapt to, that life has chosen not to in most cases. Life has largely favoured the simplest, and often most specialized lifeforms, with many slight variations to succeed where fewer, heartier variants could have sufficed. Of course the largest stresses are the unpredictable ones, like volcanos, asteroids, solar cooling cycles, and so on. Cyclical stressors can be adapted to, like the tides, or seasons, but there are these latter kinds of stressors that just don’t happen often enough. Though even this isn’t a universal truth, since tardigrades can be 97% dehydrated, survive for 30 years without food, survive in the deepest ocean trenches, or even on frozen mountaintops, their adaptation is one of resurrection when conditions are right to thrive.
There is also plenty of evidence for evolution that serves no beneficial or competitive function. Fruits are often very colourful, with the specific intent of being eaten, and therefore it’s seeds would be deposited in manure, well away from the source plant, but this reason for standing out with a bright colour, wouldn’t apply to a rose, since it isn’t trying to be eaten. What is the discernible benefit for a tigershark to have stripes, when the vast majority of hunting sharks are plain, even in the same hunting grounds? We have to accept, that sometimes evolution has no purpose, as long as it is adequate. Trial and error.
Above all, Earth’s ecosystems have proven that the individual is less important than the system it belongs to. That the strongest, fastest, most brutal killer, has no greater part to play than the insignificant maggot. It is the ecosystem that we belong to, the survival of that ecosystem which takes precedence over the survival of a given species, in almost all cases. It is man who has broken this rule. It is modern man who has singly decided not to be bound by the laws of life. The Abrahamic notion of being chosen by god, or created in his image, is just another example of hubris.
Mankind is a part of the story of Earth. In other words, we are not tardigrades, we are going to die on this rock.