mocking the mockery of Stephen J. Gould

The introduction-to-biology textbook "A View Of Life" (LGS1980, AVoL) was published by three Jewish authors, Salvador Luria (a 1969 Nobel-fetcher), Stephen Jay Gould (infamous for his evolutionist lousy mouth), and (physician) Sam Singer.

The taxonomy/evolution chapters were probably written by S.J.Gould (he also had a column "This View of Life" elsewhere, in other words, he was a cult leader of pseudo-scientific sort), but if the other authors of that textbook would not like their names to appear at the cover of that same book, they could take their own chapters and publish their own books, themselves. In other words, whoever has written it, (at least) all three of them are listable as a gang-of-swindlers -- along with the establishment of biology "professors" (poseurs at universities, occupying those seats where other people could be working honestly). See how the likes of Lenski, Gould, Dawkins, Ayala, Dobzhansky, have been contained in that establishment very leniently, despite their tyrannical swindlerisms.

Jews deny the authenticity of Protocols-of-Zion (PoZ) which they try to categorize as "forgery-&-hoax" while lots of people keep witnessing that their own real-life observations could be listed as examples of PoZ really happening. Jews claim that such belief in authenticity of PoZ has caused persecutions against Jews (& I think it is both a chicken-&-egg dilemma, and anachronism that forgets how Jew-haters had fought off Jews in prior centuries, too). Now, I wonder, upon reading the next presentation, will Jews start to deny the authenticity of AVoL, too, despite those Jews themselves having put their names there (& the lecturer in our class was maybe a sabbataist). That is, if people hate SJGould-like swindlers and wish like persecuting him (if he had not ded already), will that make AVoL "non-authentic?" If Jews consider PoZ "non-Jewish" (wiki?) text, then I think the authors could add the following, to their observations about Jews.

evidences for non-evolution

In chapter 25, the subsection "Evidence for evolution" (pp.576-581), is a swindler's three-step, PoZ-like, trickery, to (unethically!) "teach" you how to mismeasure the nature:

(1) It starts by admitting that perfect (optimal) adaptation does not support evolutionism but creationism, and instead, "imperfections" that may be attributed to having had a history of change from something else, would be the sort of evidences for evolutionism.

(2) Next, the swindler-Jew-Gould waters down the argument to what "does not make sense" to his biased, bigoted, hypocritical, dismal-quality mind, and actually, all four of the "evidences" he lists in that subsection, are practically screaming to be listed as creationist evidences. With knowing only those phenomena, no honest person could ever be evolutionist.

(3) As the swindler is a Jew, and if you know what PoZ explains, it may not surprise you to hear what follows (maybe you already guessed it). s-j-Gould finishes the subsection with an exactly that category of statement, explicitly summarized in his own words "Evolution is proved by its imperfections. But once we decide, on the basis of imperfections, that evolution occurred, then exquisite adaptations become an impressive record of how finely, and with what precision, evolution can work." (AVoL, p.581) In other words, he did his trickery to fool you, and despite having created everything, the Designer's name is to be deleted, and the design rights of (Allah = Yahweh) the Creator have gone into the bank-accounts of the usurers-come-evolutionists, and those swindlers-come-"right-holders" will sign their own ideology's liar signatures ("evolution") to whatever marvel-&-miracle we witness as the nature actually created by the Creator.

(1) Biogeography

The biogeography evidence is the marsupials & placentals resembling each other, & (as one of the sloppiest-of-the-sloppies "thinker" pretenders) s-j-Gould, lists that as "makes no sense" while ignores/neglects that, it defies any honest evolutionist explanation, at all. No "tree-of-life" there! -- & even attempts to account for polymorphisms, by claiming DAG structures (MHC polymorphisms, etc) melt away, when you think of it that those phenomena are happening across continents, too. So, the thing refutes evolutionism, entirely, irrespective of "why" God would do that -- and so,

(1.1) to refute evolutionism, is itself a perfect cause for creating them that way. That is, as the God had known from the start (while writing the happenable (possible) fates, the Qader) that someone may try claiming new-designs-happening-by-evolving-what-existed-nearby.

(1.2) Furthermore, any craftsperson may have a taste, and actually, even some animals (but maybe not s-j-Gould) can recognize the signature traits of some entire art periods (music (or, painting?)). So, that is how God's imaging a perfect creation, may have been, too. He has not necessarily constrained Himself for everything that way (and some (eclectic, exploratory) craftspeople have had various design paradigms), but having a few regular preferences makes perfectly sense, for Him and the rest of us (& in universities, the exam-graders of programming courses, sometimes claim to be able to notice programming styles of different students, for example).

(1.3) If you would take two random designers from around the world, and locate one in Africa and the other in Australia, would they design necessarily similarly-shaped objects? How is the (fictitious-&-absurd science-fiction) "macro-evolution" hoped to explain having made the same shapes, across continents, at most, "cued/coerced by the environment." What sort of "environment" coerces such a huge list of shape-similarities?!?

(2) "Vestigial Organs"

S.J.Gould lists a sample list of (supposedly) "vestigial" organs, as if evidence of macro-evolution, although it may be only a proof of his dishonesty and/or extreme ignorance.

(2.1) First of all, if you wonder, I should inform you that, he does not list any human example (nor panda thumb, at least on that page, despite his other bookname). We know that ALL of the more than hundred items of human organs that had been listed as "vestigial" by evolutionists of late 19th or early 20th century, afterwards have been proven to be necessary organs. That is, there is not even a single vestigial organ in humans (presuming that you only laugh at the absurdness of the newer list that you find in wikipedia or elsewhere, that lists "missing functions" that monkeys had but (most) humans don't, such as unability-to-move-your-ears, & so, they are asking us to be like monkeys, while the Creator has created us for other purposes, not for such "missed" features). It defies explanation, how humans have no vestigial organs, at all, if evolution were even remotely true. Just how lots of humans have bellies (fat storage that weighs extra on them), one could be carrying a few useless organs, too, within the body, that is, no significant survival value, in getting rid of useless organs.

(2.2) Had Gould ever hear of "micro-evolution" & how it works? If he hadn't, then he could request the chapters from his co-author who wrote about it in the same intro-bio text. After all, sth. that is not necessarily very useful in one context, may be very adaptive in other context, & the organism does not even have to "micro-evolve" if the organ (including bone category) is already there -- as unlike microbes that fastly micro-evolve, other organisms may even have no chance, if it would wait the next generation to grow up (especially if their parents have already died because of unadaptedness).

(2.3) Just like in humans (the most heavily researched organism, because of the medical field), other animals are very expectably, without any vestigial organs, at all. So, it is the ignorance of the vestigiality claimers, at most, and ironically, it reminds of their hypocrisy of making the "god-of-gaps" argument, because actually it is their vestigiality lists that evaporate when more research is done. (In contrast, even if they would someday ever make a plausible series of reconstructions out of fossils, a creatonist may simply undermine it, as "only one of the thinkable theories," after all.)

(2.4) As others have already pointed out that, a panda lives by scratching tree leaves and eating them, and it is not holding a pen for writing sth., and so, opposable-thumb is not necessary, nor optimal, for that life-style (as pandas live by scratching and eating tree leaves, not publishing). BTW, I have no opinion, whether that "panda bear not writing" example is also a retort (mockery) against the blasphemous swearwords ("lousy engineer") of (the lousy "bear") s-j-Gould.

(3) "Embryology"

The arguments resemble the "vestigiality" arguments, & similarly, reflect the dishonesty and/or ignorance of that swindler-Jew-Gould. In addition to the points listed in that previous subsection,

(3.1) "having gill slits like fish" makes sense in context because womb is aquatic, & dropping it off after getting out, is the design choice of the Creator (& He could choose otherwise, too, if those slits could be useful afterward, too).

(3.2) Lunar rockets shed their module(s), too, after its/their usefulness/function expire(s). So, does that mean the designers of those lunar rockets have "not" intended for optimality, but simply "evolved" them from whatever old machine they had in their junkyard? Optimally crafting, with attention to every point (and to gracefully phase out, what becomes redundant/unnecessary or harmful) is not "sloppy" engineering. It takes great designership.

(3.3) If useless, why are they kept happening in all humans, if disuse causes degeneration of organs?

(4) "Homology"

The bigoted s-j-Gould asks "Why would God have used the same building blocks, and distorted and twisted them in odd ways, if He had simply set out to make the best swimming, running, and flying machines?"

(4.1) Does Gould think birds are not-quite-marvelous as flying machines? Horses or cheetahs cannot run well? Fish have troubles at swimming? Why is Gould trying to confuse people? What does he mean as a "perfection" in a creature? "The best?!?" Those creatures are perfect (in some sense), and actually, never meant to be ultimately (invincible, unfailable) "perfect" in this world. The Creator Himself is perfect, the Heaven and the Hell are perfect. Furthermore, there are degrees of marvelousnesses ("best" may be for those at the top degrees of the Heaven, for some features, while other features may be at best quality for all heaven degrees), & similarly, there are degrees of the Hell, too. We humans live through a test-ground in this world, and every creature seems to be almost perfect (maybe very very almost perfect, but maybe never meant to be worshippably perfect, & see how Abraham (a.s.) reasoned that the Sun and the Moon could not be his (a.s.) God, because they lacked constancy, that is, they lacked a dimension of perfectness, omnipresence, he (a.s.) expected from the God that he (a.s.) would worship). Evolutionists have to explain how such a degree of perfection (a very high standard) at every creature, is achieved (such as nothing vestigial in humans). BTW, not perfection of creatures, but various degrees of marvelousnesses of them, may be visible. If running is the question, a cheetah is faster than a lion (but there may be other aspects of lions, advantageous against cheetahs, now I don't know).

(4.2) programmers (or, "software engineers") name it "re-use" and value it a lot (and some are fanatics of it, & they believe that is what makes software-"engineering" become like other engineering branches, that build with proven, cozy modules, like you may know it when you need a cake, at the table). It fits to how the craft of the Creator, as it resembles how He enabled us doing crafts, like Himself, too. It fits to His telling of the similarity in the Holy book(s) (how I interpret the Quran (Yasin:78~) His creation history resembles human research/production histories (planning ahead, & quoting portions from multiple older works, not limiting Himself to designing with single-inheritance for new designs, He may use multiple modules that He had used in multiple unrelated species, when designing a new one, & may build new modules, too, that had not existed in previous species), & the term "in His image" in Genesis suggests me He created us with the ability to imagine like Himself)) (His prowess is a lot more than our abilities, "but" as we know (& like) sufficiently of our own, then we may appreciate His, too.)

(4.3) The re-use of the same organs, is creationist evidence that refutes evolutionism -- especially when no orderly "tree" (nor even DAG structure, if there're loops and "anachronisms") of "inheritance" among species. For craftspeople, having various modules to repetitively re-use them, is a wise method, and if the Creator would create everything from ground-up, unrelated to other modules of other species, then some extreme "dreamers"/swindlers (such as Dawkins appears) would keep believing in "everything is possible" (as if anything could pop up from the ground), independently, while now, one single Creator that twists (made-to-fit) the (parametric) material to various contexts, is just demonstrating His enviable crafts prowess, & that is, He is not shrinking from the contraints of re-using the same thing, in various contexts. As a result, the black-boxes of the swindlers become too "big" (bloated) to be believable, as they cannot even list a plausible ("possible") series of transitioning from land-based animals to the flying birds. If those would have been independent, the evolutionist swindlers (doing sleights-of-hands, juggling their lies) would sweep things away into those smaller boxes, perhaps more easily (but maybe it would be still impossible to believe any of their lies, when we would expect even the least of real evidences).

important things in life

People make war for any (or, multiple) of { freedom, faith (religion), money (wealth, land), life (health) }, and those tyrannical swindlers leave no doubt that they assault us in all of those four aspects (such as threatening with jailing, or (liarly) declaring evolutionism "necessary" for medical-&-engineering fields). So, isn't this war? Part of Armageddon?

If Ayala, Dawkins, Dobzhansky, Gould, Lenski, Wallace, and how many (almost all?) other evolutionist cult leaders (agitator swindlers) are actually hereticJews/sabbataists/frankists, then this is already obviously a part of the Armageddon.

Expectably, such hereticJews act out their agenda to override human reason (both through thought-control ((satanical/antichristish) witchcraft), and by replacing the objective-&-common-sense criteria (science, etc), with the usual Jewish sports-of-lies (TV-like, Marxist-revolutions-like) Jewish/PoZ agitations).

It is sufficiently hateful-&-disgusting when somebody uses swindler-trickery-to-deny-the-Creator. Knowing that it is not only a single man but a whole establishment of lie-jugglers, justifies labeling them an evil-conspiracy. It is a conspiracy denying the real God, and trying to build a tyranny-of-(pseudo)science that coerces people to accept ("learn") their blasphemous lies (as if real) to get grades at school (Ayala denies medical & engineering fields to creationists). Dawkins proposes jailing those of us who don't buy his black-boxes.

no-Oxy tube w/ revTranscriptase, may take minutes to-RNA-&-backInto-DNA? & "LTEE did" (w/o mod&dropIn?) in 2 decades? How trust Lenski&fans?
= tweet#180 @zilqarneyn (Oct. 7, 2016)

Furthermore, as the members of that evil conspiracy turn out to be so-absurdly-stupids (as noticeable when looked at their lies & fallacies), then we should wonder how those poseurs pass around as professors, at all. If they are so brain-dead, how do they bring out research in any field, at all -- unless stealing them from the rest of us and/or (sometimes) publishing/confessing about the methods of their own conspiracy (theft, etc.) systems? Read more ...

Forum: . . (Fair Menu . . . . . Fault Report? . . . . . Remedy for your case . . . . . Noticed Plagiarism?)

Referring#: 0
Last-Revised (text) on Sept. 26, 2017 -- Muharram 6, 1439
Written by: Ahmed Ferzan/Ferzen R Midyat-Zila (or, Earth) . . . @zilqarneyn
Copyright (c) 2009, 2017 Ferzan Midyat. All rights reserved.
mirror