The Evolutionist Racketeering: Compatible Ancestry sold as Common Descent

Buyer Beware (caveat emptor)!

Evolution is selling the Compatible Ancestry between organisms as a fraudulent and Incompatible “Common Descent”.

This work is a continuation of “Calling Darwin’s Bluff” and of “The Fraud of Evolution: Variation sold as Speciation.”

To have all the human diversity living today, an initial human couple was sufficient, that’s compatible ancestry within self-perpetuating groups. The same can be said for all the varieties of finches, and for all the varieties of cichlids, dolphins, gulls, crayfishes, dogs (included the wild dogs: wolves, coyotes, jackals and dingoes), cavefishes, elephants, Gasterosteus, Laupala crickets (second post on them), Calidris, Rhagoletis, etc., etc.

However, evolution is fraudulently using such examples above mentioned as their evidence that new species are being originated all the time (speciation), when in reality what they are describing is just variation within compatible groups of organisms. Microchange is being oversold by evolution as a speculative macrochange. Microevolution is being presented as a “prove” for a speculative an non-existent macroevolution.

According to evolution, a lizard and a bird were originated by one or by a couple, of by what? Or by a non-existent common ancestor that looked like what (like that fraudulent bird sold by National Geographic with the “expert help” of German Dr. Hans Dieter Sues)? Or by a single and non-existent haploid dinosaur? Or rather, dinosaurs, lizards and birds were originated by a monstrous couple of what? Or a couple was not needed at all? Or all of them were originated by a non-existent “reptobirdopo”? And what about the never existent “protomonohomo”? Or all living beings were originated by random processes within speculated primordial soups of self digesting aminoacids? No? Rather then, of nucleic acids? Like in a self destroying RNA world? No? Instead, of greasy lipids? Lipids that by themselves are useful for nothing? Or "the low carb world" (smile)? And that is the undeniable evidence that evolution has? And I have not been able even to mention the findings of Jonathan Wells, as described in his last 'musical satire of evolution' hit "overwhelming evidence", by The Mutations (Tammy Heath, Cynthia Ziesman and Terry Thoelke)! (smile.)

If you enter evolution, as Darwin and his current pals see it, you are welcome to their worlds of nothingness, to their worlds of speculations, of absurd claims, of errors, of frauds and of a rampant intellectual racketeering!

The current definition for a false "common descent" is:

Common descent (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia):

"A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary principles was proposed by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species (1859), and later in The Descent of Man (1871). This theory is now generally accepted by biologists, and the last universal common ancestor (LUCA or LUA). In 1859, Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species was published. The views about common descent expressed therein vary between suggesting that there was a single "first creature" to allowing that there may have been more than one..."

Has this definition changed since Darwin wrote his book? No, not really.

Let’s now see the definition of “Common Descent” starting with the chief deceiver:

Darwin wrote that, according to him,

“how many facts indicated the common descent of species” [In" F. Darwin & A.C. Seward, eds, More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols., London, John Murray, 1903. [page 367] Letter 278. To Otto Zacharias. 1877. Vol. 1. Ch 5.]

However, the contrary comment related to this preposterous statement of Darwin (today repeated as "fact" and ad nauseam by his materialistic followers) was done by Thomas H. Huxley (appeared as a footnote in the same reference as the above quotation, with my emphasis in bold and brackets):

"The facts to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to attract the attention of a [materialistic] philosophical thinker; but until the relations of the existing with the extinct species and of the species of the different geographical areas, with one another were determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation for speculation" [From Darwiniana, Essays by Thomas H. Huxley, London, 1893; pages 274-5.]

Darwin’s “Facts”, even according to his “bulldog” Thomas H. Huxley are “an unsafe foundation for speculation”! and are useful only “to attract the attention of a [materialistic] philosophical thinker”, and what kind of a materialistic “philosophical thinker”? "Thinkers" like Richard Dawkins, those “fulfilled atheists”, and the others that are agnostics, superficial, vain, vainglorious, "agnolites", etc…

Then, Darwin followed his rhetorical game of self-deception when he wrote [In: Francis Darwin ed., The foundations of the Origin of Species: Two essays written in 1842 and 1844 by Charles Darwin. Cambridge, 1909. [from Darwin’s 1844 Essay]:

“…we are not justified in prima facie rejecting a theory of the common descent of allied organisms from the difficulty of imagining the transitional stages… This want [LACK] of evidence of the past existence of almost infinitely numerous intermediate forms, is, I conceive, much the weightiest difficulty on the theory of common descent; but I must think that this is due to ignorance necessarily resulting from the imperfection of all geological records... the frequent and almost general presence of organs and parts, called by naturalists abortive or rudimentary… were shown to be simply explicable on our theory of common descent.”

My comment is that the lack of fossil record still the same as when Darwin wrote simply because there are no "transitionals", while the lack of eyes in the cavefish is adaptation! That’s the shutting down of unnecessary organs within a very specific environment! That has nothing to do with those Darwinian speculations!And Darwin again:

"Why do we wish to reject the theory of common descent? Before concluding it will be well to show, although this has incidentally appeared, how far the theory of common descent can legitimately be extended*... No doubt the more remote two species are from each other, the weaker the arguments become in favour of their common descent"

The footnote written by Darwin's son is the next: * This corresponds to a paragraph in the Origin, Ed. I. p. 483, vi. p. 662, where it is assumed that animals have descended "from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number." In the Origin, however, the author goes on, Ed. I. p. 484, vi. p. 663: "Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype"

The fact is that in his full draft or "essay" of 1844 for his book the Origin, Darwin used the words "common descent" at least eleven times, while in the final version of his book he used that words not even one time! [Also, those words doesn't appear in his human 'evolution' speculations in "Descent of Man"]

Talk about Charles Darwin's rhetorics (link to a RealPlayer Video), self-contradictions and hypocrisy!

Another example of that, can be seen by the way Darwin wrote the end of the first edition of his Origins:

"probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed...
The whole history of the world, as at present known, although of a length quite incomprehensible by us, will hereafter be recognised as a mere fragment of time, compared with the ages which have elapsed since the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created...
When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled... There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one" [Darwin, On the origin of species. London, John Murray, 1859. Chap. XIV. Conclusion]

Who is the One that "first breathed" life? Who is the One that "created"? Who is the One that "originally breathed" life?

In the foundations of the Origin of species Part II we read that

:"In the 2nd edition "by the Creator" is introduced after "originally breathed."

The expression "originally breathed" was left in all his editions while the other ones: "first breathed", "was created", and "by the Creator" were removed in Darwin's later editions of Origins (all those terms were deemed by Darwin, "the Pentateuchal terms").

Dawin responded in the Athenaeum:

“Your reviewer [Dr. Carpenter]sneers with justice at my use of the 'Pentateuchal terms,' 'of one primordial form into which life was first breathed': in a purely scientific work I ought perhaps not to have used such terms; but they well serve to confess that our ignorance is as profound on the origin of life as on the origin of force or matter. Your reviewer [Dr. Carpenter] thinks that the weakness of my theory is demonstrated because existing Foraminifera are identical with those which lived at a very remote epoch” [Darwin, 'The Doctrine of Heterogeny and Modification of Species', Athenaeum. Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts, no. 1852, 25 April 1863, pp. 554-55.]

We can see here that even Darwin did not considered his book of Origin as a "purely scientific" one. So, the same hypocrisy of Darwin can be seen time after time by comparing his letters with his books. Next, in a fragment barely preserved, Darwin freely expresses himself with Hooker, his intimate friend; here, Darwin uses more "freedom of speech" by declaring, about the same Athenaeum 1863's incident:

"...Many thanks for Athenaeum, received this morning, and to be returned to-morrow morning. Who would have ever thought of the old stupid Athenaeum taking to Oken-like transcendental philosophy written in Owenian style!* ...It will be some time before we see "slime, protoplasm, etc.," generating a new animal.† But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation,* by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter. [C. Darwin to J.D. Hooker. March 29, 186.3 F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905. Vol. 2. Ch. 4. p. 202]"

So, the evil Darwin left "the Pentateuchal terms" in his Origin because he "truckled to public opinion" and secretly he lived "regretting" having left that words in the Origin! Originally, what he really meant was expressed by himself: "I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process..." So, leaving those Pentateuchal words in his Origin, for Darwin was "mere rubbish"! Also we can see that Darwin referred himself to the journal Athenaeum, to which he just wrote, as a "stupid" journal!

The notes of Darwin's son for this fragment are numerous and longer than the preserved paragraph itself!

One notable fragment from that notes is the next one, written by Darwin's critic, Dr. Carpenter: * (from the above quotation) - "...my conviction that the present state of scientific evidence, instead of sanctioning the idea that the descendants of the primitive type or types of Foraminifera can ever rise to any higher grade, justifies the anti-Darwinian influence, that however widely they diverge from each other and from their originals, they still remain Foraminifera."

For the rest of Darwin's notes for that revealing fragment, go to the original link, but, enough is here to say that in such notes we see a Darwin speculating about "the protein world", ancestor of the unfortunate speculation of "the amino acid world", predating the unfortunate and similar speculation of the "RNA world".

T. H. Huxley declares how Darwin's Origin helped him to left behind "the Pentateuchal cosmology":

"I was not brought into serious contact with the 'Species' question until after 1850. At that time, I had long done with the Pentateuchal cosmogony, which had been impressed upon my childish understanding as Divine truth, with all the authority of parents and instructors, and from which it had cost me many a struggle to get free" [F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905. Chapter XIV. By Professor Huxley. On The Reception Of The 'Origin Of Species.']

Huxley already wanted to get rid of "the Pentateuchal cosmology" but was unable to do so, until he read Darwin's Origin! So, its effects are pernicious...

Years before, Darwin wrote to Hooker:

"You ask how far I go in attributing organisms to a common descent; I answer I know not; the way in which I intend treating the subject, is to show (as far as I can) the facts and arguments for and against the common descent of the species of the same genus; and then show how far the same arguments tell for or against forms, more and more widely different: and when we come to forms of different orders and classes, there remain only some such arguments as those which can perhaps be deduced from similar rudimentary structures, and very soon not an argument is left." [C. Darwin to J.D. Hooker. [18th. July, 1855]. F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905. Vol. 1. Ch. 11. Page 425.]

Darwin knew that only the 'benevolence' of the materialistic people will do for him, as he also wrote, as we have seen it:

"No doubt the more remote two species are from each other, the weaker the arguments become in favour of their common descent" [Francis Darwin ed., The foundations of the Origin of Species: Two essays written in 1842 and 1844 by Charles Darwin. Cambridge, 1909. from Darwin’s 1844 Essay]

And also in his 1842 draft for the Origin Darwin wrote about the weakness of his speculating ideas:

"Who, seeing how plants vary in garden, what blind foolish man has done (#) in a few years, will deny an all-seeing being in thousands of years could effect (if the Creator chose to do so), either by his own direct foresight or by intermediate means,—which will represent (?) the creator of this universe. Seems usual means. Be it remembered I have nothing to say about life and mind and all forms descending from one common type (*). I speak of the variation of the existing great divisions of the organised kingdom, how far I would go, hereafter to be seen" [Darwin, 1842 essay on the origin of species. Part I] The notes that Darwin's son inserted here are # - See Origin, Ed. I. p. 83, vi. p. 102, where the word Creator is replaced by Nature [My comment: What about Dover? for Darwin it is O.K., but not for you, Dr. Dean Kenyon (for whom the editorial team allegedly replaced the word "Creation" with the word "Intelligent Design" for his book "Of Pandas and People")]. * - Darwin's Note in the original. "Good place to introduce, saying reasons hereafter to be given, how far I extend theory, say to all mammalia- reasons growing weaker and weaker."

Are the reasons for a distant and incompatible common descent improved? Not a shred! Ony by the use of a materialistic philosophy and rhetorics willing people can be fooled in such a way...

But, to conclude with this review, done as a reminder of Darwin's past lies and to be able to recognize its present leftovers, we need to ask to ourselves, who was that evil Hooker with which Darwin was so confident, and viceversa, as to use words like "stupid", in refering himself to a magazine and such extreme sincerity as to express his real feelings, and their real and hidden agenda?

This is the historical finding, from the UK, by Andrew Rowell:

Chuckling behind their hands....
I [A. Rowell] found this very revealing quotation in David Samuel’s book “Without Excuse.” It was from a Letter of J.D. Hooker to Charles Darwin following Hooker’s address at a meeting of the British Association in 1866. In that address he had declared that he saw evidence for design in variation itself:

“By a wise ordinance it is ruled, that amongst living beings like shall never produce its exact like…. A wise ordinance it is, that ensures the succession of being, not by multiplying absolutely identical forms, but by varying these.”

He [the Hooker] soon afterwards wrote to Darwin to assure him he was only talking like this to make the religious freaks feel comfortable with evolution!

He writes to Darwin:

"The only thing I do not like…. Was the passage about a wise Providence ordering &c, &c or something of that sort (I forget the words, it matters little). It is bosh and unscientific, but I could not resist the opportunity of turning the tables of Providence over those who will have a Providence in the affair, that yours is the God one and theirs the Devil’s." (Life and Letters of J.D. Hooker Vol 2 p. 106)

[A. Rowell concludes:] The clergy who suck up to Darwinists and say that there is no conflict at all between theism and atheism are rather like those who clapped Hooker’s address while he was chuckling behind his hand to his friend Charles.

The Hooker and The Darwin, Chuckling behind their dirty hands (smile.)

So, I conclude as I started, Buyer Beware (caveat emptor), Darwin's Evolution is a Big Fat Lie!

To the critics: You can classify this piece within the category of "history of the evolution deception".

http://teleological.org/?p=126