Requirements of Darwinism
DARWIN ENDEAVORED to adopt or reconcile Lyell's geological time scale and uniformitarian theory to biology. In this way, Darwinism (evolution) can be considered a daughter theory of uniformitarianism. This Darwinian endeavor became famous in The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection (1859). This hypothesis, modified and reworked by others in later decades, became a virtual doctrine for a collection of modern anti-spiritual philosophies, just as Genesis has served as a doctrine of origin for the Judeo-Christian collection of philosophies.
This chapter shall probe into the various assumptions, and subtheories of Darwinism, even as the previous chapters have been concerned with some of the assumptions of uniformitarianism. Darwinism is actually a complex of assumptions, which were amalgamated by Darwin.
There are seven major assumptions or subtheories within the Darwinian
premise. Six are basic assumptions, and one is of overriding central importance--something
like a Greek temple, supported with six vertical pillars, but containing
a seventh central overriding horizontal beam. These seven subtheories,
embracing various assumptions, are as follows. The central or overriding
assumption is listed last.
|1. Geological Uniformitarianism||) Relates to|
|2. Survival of the Fittest||Catastrophism|
|3. Environmental Determinism||) Relates to|
|4. Natural Selection (Inbreeding)||Genetics|
|5. Comparative Embryology||) Empirical|
|6. Missing Links (Apemen)||) Relates to
|7. The Requirement of a Biochemical Mechanism|
The first six of these subtheories, or preliminary assumptions, are supposedly vertical pillars of support, and the seventh, the principle that every biochemical process requires a mechanism, is the overriding subtheory. Of these seven subtheories, the sixth is essentially post-Darwinian, although Darwin briefly discussed the subject.
How many of these seven subtheories need to be valid in order to provide effective support for the theory. What if only five, or three, or one of these seven theories are found to be valid? What if none are found valid? Does the encompassing theory of Darwin remain valid?
Certain hasty claims might be made to the effect that catastrophism destroys the heart of the Darwinian premise. This would be an overstatement. Rather in a precise analysis, catastrophism pitches a second hard strike against the evolutionary theory. Genetics has already pitched a first hard strike against it. Astral catastrophism is the second strike, as shall be shortly demonstrated. But it is not a third strike. Nevertheless, a second strike opens the way for a possible third strike. And so astral catastrophism opens the door for more extensive probings. And such deeper probings just could possibly result in a resounding third strike.
Frequently, history has supported the saying: "Necessity is the mother of invention." During the middle portion of the 19th century, many were teaching some idea or other regarding spontaneous generation of life and emergence from small and inferior forms to larger and superior forms, an idea to which bacteriologist Pasteur strongly objected. This idea has been woven into Greek literature, and into the deep reaches of Greek philosophy. Anaxamander, some 2500 years ago, had taught this, as had Plato.1
The anti-spiritual, "enlightened" scholars of yesteryear were searching for an alternative to the proposition of Creation as set forth in Genesis. To them, Darwin's evolutionary premise sounded scientific; therefore it was considered and propagated as a scientific doctrine. What Darwin had accomplished was to provide what purported to be a biochemical mechanism for views of emergence which were already being advanced.
Thus Darwinism, without being rigorously tested, was presented to the world in the triple garb of rationalism, science and truth. The purpose of this chapter is to review the rationalizing, to test what part if any of the theory is demonstrably scientific, and to ascertain whether the Darwinian hypothesis is indeed myth or truth.
In like manner, Ptolemy's Almagest had sounded scientific in his day, and Ptolemy was considered a sancrosanct authority for fourteen centuries. His thesis had appealed to the prevailing views of his day. That Ptolemy's views happened to be in error did not prevent them from being accepted. Yet had they been tested with sufficient rigor, other views would have replaced his.
It is with the above in mind that the Darwinian hypothesis is reviewed. When, in the Ptolemaic system, unsatisfactory circumstances kept arising, new explanations were given which satisfied the moment but which eventually complicated the total picture. For example, planets in their procession around the Earth suddenly reversed directions. This was explained by adding a few epicycles from time to time. And so it has been with Darwinism. Difficulties have arisen. How have these difficulties been met? Have they been satisfied with fact or with additional unverified hypotheses? Do they appeal to historical assumption, philosophic doctrine or scientific reality?
By examining the inner machinery of the Darwinian hypothetical superstructure, and by applying a little stress here and there to each of the six supporting subtheories, and by examining any presence or absence of valid historical and scientific explanation, this hypothesis will inevitably emerge either stronger as a result of testing or clearly weaker as a result of probing.
Thus Darwin's six assumptions, or subtheories shall be cast into three categories: (1) geological catastrophism, and Earth history, (2) genetics and biochemical processes of heredity and (3) endocrinology and biochemical balances.
If, say, two of these supporting subtheories of Darwinism are found
to be in shambles, what does that do to the total strength of the superstructure?
If four of the supporting subtheories are found to be simply untenable,
then does the superstructure become a good candidate for academic abandonment?
And what if six are found to be invalid? The forthcoming analysis will
investigate this possibility, and will examine each subtheory in the light
of historical and modern scientific findings.
1. Geological Catastrophism and Darwinism
Subtheory 1: Geological Uniformitarianism. Darwin considered
the proposition of GEOLOGICAL UNIFORMITARIANISM fourth in his series
of assumptions; here it shall be considered first, because the main thrust
of this volume has been to establish the lack of validity of this premise.
Again, the definitions of uniformitarianism and catastrophism are reviewed:
The doctrine that existing processes, acting as at present, are sufficient to account for all geological changes.
The doctrine that changes in the earth's crust have generally been effected suddenly by physical forces.2
Lyell's ideas relative to time were at least as poor as Ptolemy's, but Ptolemy, with his lack of data, had a better excuse for error. Darwin, who was intimately associated with Lyell for about two decades, worked as his assistant for several years following his excursion on the H.M.S. Beagle (and prior to his marriage) He was coached carefully by Lyell in uniformitarianism. It was during this era (1837-1839) that Darwin's hypothesis took its essential form.
Lyell with Darwin rejected and ignored the views of his contemporaries on catastrophism, and thus they each had no understanding of the forces which have shaken our planet, brought forth an Ice Epoch, upthrusted mountain systems, and caused surging oceans of subcontinental magnitudes. They had no understanding of a previous era and another climatic regime in that era, the Greenhouse Effect. Nor did they have any understanding of the meaning involved in such a gross change in our atmospheric habitat.
Furthermore, Lyell and Darwin neither had any understanding of either (a) Catastrophism as a principle in Earth history, or (b) at least two separate and distinct catastrophic periods, one of which included the rise of the Alpine-Himalayan cycle and the Circum-Pacific cycle of mountains, and the other in which other lower ranges were raised. Lyell and Darwin didn't understand the fact of catastrophism; neither did they understand the timing of Earth catastrophes. The Flood Catastrophe may have occurred less than 5,000 years ago, and the earlier catastrophic age may well have ended as recently as 20,000 to 10,000 years ago.
This writer dated the Flood Catastrophe at 2800 B.C., plus or minus a few hundred years. A prior catastrophe, having occurred before the creation of higher life, has been projected, and both completely contradict Lyell's time scale. The dating of this primordial catastrophe was 10,000 to 20,000 B.C., plus or minus a few thousand years.
Ten thousand years is ample time for the establishment of the antediluvian species, via methods of serial creation from region to region. Although it is ample time for creation, it is so little time for evolving that if it is correct (or even nearly correct) , it confines and strains the Darwinian requirement for time to the point of absurdity.
Within this last decade, many men in the natural sciences have sensed the poverty of the uniformitarian proposition. It is hardly a secret that men, particularly within the geological division of the natural sciences, have been searching for some method to let catastrophism in through the back door, yet without giving any credit to Genesis. With such an approach, a paradox is being developed which may well be increasingly difficult to solve.3, 4
When one considers the many marvellous species on our planet and the
more numerous species on our planet prior to the Flood Catastrophe, it
is thought that any chance construction-- even oblivious to the time element
involved--of such extremely complicated biochemical mechanisms as the simpler,
one-celled animals cries out for the conclusion of a Divine Architect,
whether or not the Creator is associated with the Judeo-Christian interpretation.5
But if the time element is regarded, and if geological (astral) catastrophism
is credited, and geological uniformitarianism is disallowed, there is very
little room left for Darwinian emergence.
Subtheory 2: Survival of the Fittest. This is a premise which Darwin dwelt upon at length particularly in the fourth chapter of The Origin of Species. He taught that the most adaptive strains and the most prolific strains of animals survived, and that the weakest and the least adaptive did not. Often, to the average reader, the fittest have been identified with the most ferocious--those animals which could most easily defend themselves from their enemies. These were often the animals at the top of the food pyramid: the lions, the tigers, the wolves and other great predators. This is an over-simplification of the Darwinian view.
This study appeals to the only known historical principle to compare modern species with earlier species. This is the fossil record, and one brief look into the fossil record will result in perhaps a surprise. The fittest (either as Darwin defined them or as others have defined them) mostly did not survive. In many fossil beds, remains of numerous carcasses are found both disjointed and piecemeal, jumbled in an unsorted fashion. These carcasses have obviously been impounded by a great watery upheaval. There is no evidence that these animals were inferior or not adaptive. There is substantial evidence that they were caught and trapped. The fossil beds include animal remains, in unsorted fashion, both great and small, both carnivorous and herbivorous.
There is little evidence that they were inferior to their modern counterparts, or less adaptive; in fact there is evidence to the contrary. These animals were mostly larger than their current surviving species, and were apparently well-fed. While there is no evidence that they were inferior as adjudged by Darwinian definitions, yet there is evidence that they were unable to climb or fly away from the Flood when it came. They were simply victims caught and engulfed in cataclysmic conditions; their carcasses were deposited, often disjointed and littered in watery dumps with many other parts of carcasses. Overlaid strata and subsequent Earth tides buried the carcasses in strata and compressed the strata. The carcasses became fossilized.
In some fossil beds in mid-America, 60% of the species found therein are today extinct; 40% are extant. In other fossil beds, as high as 75% and 85% of the fossil forms found therein are extinct, and as low as 15% are extant. And contrary to the Darwinian proposition, those fossilized forms are in most cases larger and more impressive than their current counterparts, which have survived. How can they be presumed to be inferior? Actually if size and specialization mean anything (and it did to Darwin), the fauna of our current age are the fauna which, in comparison, must be considered as inferior.
There are numerous examples. One is the modern elephant, found in both Africa and India. He is dwarfed by the fossil imperial elephant, which in turn was smaller than the hairy mammoths or the woolly mastodons. Ostriches have been found in fossil form; their size is comparable to the modern giraffe. Fossil pigs have been found as large as rhinoceroses. Fossil sloths have been found fossilized, some 18 feet tall, and bears, some 20 feet tall. Some fossil bears, by comparison, make the Alaskan Kodiak bears appear as dwarfs.
Bears, elephants, ostriches, pigs and sloths are mostly herbivorous in their diet. Is this same principle relative to size true among carnivorates (meat-eaters) ? There is the example of the saber-toothed mesonyx. He was a wolf, somewhat larger than a Great Dane, and at least twice as large as a modern timber wolf. Another example is the smilodon, a large saber-toothed panther. It too was bigger and more ferocious than its modern counterpart. And there was the saber-toothed tiger, again not smaller, but larger than its modern counterpart.
The same principle holds true for birds, insects and reptiles. Birds with 20 and 30 foot wingspans are known in the fossil record. Dragonflies with wing spans of 20 and 30 inches are known in the fossil record. Reptiles 75 and 85 feet long, and weighing 40 and 50 tons are also known in the fossil record.
Turtles thrive in protected habitats. Darwin was most impressed by the turtles on the Galapagos Islands, where they possessed a marine reserve, protected from their natural predators. South Dakota and Nebraska are not known for their protected marine location, nor their humid climate, which turtles require to thrive. Furthermore, their continental location would hardly qualify this area as a protected reserve from their predators. Nevertheless in this location, cold in the winter and arid in the summer, fossil turtles have been found some 12 feet in diameter. They would make any of the Galapagos Island turtles look like dwarfs.
And concerning the numerous dinosaurs, some were herbivorous; others were carnivorous. Some were a few inches tall, and others were very tall and bulky. Some were aquatic while others were terrestrial. Some had horns, some had spiny spikes, some had extravagant coats of horned mail. None were "fit" to survive by Darwinian theory. All were engulfed, drowned, buried, compressed and fossilized according to catastrophic theory.
But then, let us for a moment suppose that Darwin's guess about "Survival of the Fittest" was correct. Interesting questions have already been posed from the geological view. Some further questions of interest might be posed from the geograph-ical view. The horse became extinct in the Western Hemisphere if the fossil record is to be trusted, but it survived in the Eastern Hemisphere. The elementary conclusion is that conditions occurred allowing it to be "fit" in one hemisphere but not in the other. And what of the camel? The camel became also extinct in the Western but not in the Eastern. What then of the musk ox, which became extinct in the Eastern but not the Western? And then, what of the rhinoceros, which is found in the Western Hemisphere only in zoos or in fossil form? Saber-toothed tigers have been found, among other places, in the La Brea tar pits near Los-Angeles. Was this form not fit to survive in the Western Hemisphere? But was fit to survive in the Eastern? The elephant apparently survived in two places in the Eastern Hemisphere, but not in any place in the Western, while the mammoths and mastodons became extinct in both hemispheres.
What do these conflicting patterns indicate? They indicate that many animals became engulfed in huge, watery or icy cataclysms, were drowned, buried and fossilized. This indicates that the Flood was indeed global and tidal. But beyond that, what do these opposing or conflicting geographical patterns of survival show? They show nothing, in terms of the Darwinian hypothesis.6, 7 Actually, Darwin's idea is sufficiently abstruse, when compared to actual findings, that it makes a poor explanation for nearly everything in the fossil record.
Darwin's hypothesis does not align with the fossil facts. Nevertheless, it needs every opportunity to establish itself. And therefore other questions are in order.
Seemingly, the finest of the ancient herbivorates were the mammoths and mastodons. This is ruling out the much larger variant forms of dinosaurs, such as the ceratopsians (horned dinosaurs), the ornithopods (duck-billed dinosaurs), stegosaurs (plated dinosaurs), and the giant sauropods (including the 87 1/2 foot diplodocus). This is also ruling out such fine mammals as the baluchitheriums, the brontops, the megatheriums, and so forth. This is overruling some fine-looking rhinoceroses, some with two horns, some with one horn, and some rhino-like forms with no horns at all. The mammoth, certainly one of nature's finest herbivorates, failed to survive.
But what then of nature's finest carnivorate? Again, deference is made from the giant carnivorous dinosaurs, such as the allosaurus, tyrranosaurus and the gorgosaurus. Deference is made from the mesonyx, and smilodon, among other forms. The saber-toothed tiger is often considered as the carnivorate supreme in pre-historic times. Why was he unfit to survive as a species?
Nature's finest herbivorate, the mammoth, and nature's finest carnivorate, the saber-toothed tiger, have been considered. There is a third category, the omnivorates. This includes animals which eat both plants and animals, and usually insects as well. A bear is an omnivorate. A pig is an omnivorate. And there are some fine-looking bears and pigs in the fossil record.
But according to prevailing opinion, nature's finest omnivorate was neither the bear nor the pig. It was Homo sapiens, according to man's opinion. And according to the records of Homo sapiens, both in folklore, on paper and in stone, he too just barely survived. This story comes not merely from just one region of our globe, but rather it occurs independently on several continents, and in almost the same way.
This Flood motif, or Flood story, involving a universal flood which either engulfed or nearly engulfed the tops of the higher mountains, occurs in the cultures of the world in a geographical pattern approaching universality. It often involved a large barge or boat, used to escape the Flood. If Homo sapiens just barely survived, according to his own records, and if this concept is repeatedly verified by geological data, then wherein is Darwin's assumption sound? It is no sounder with regard to Survival of the Fittest than was Lyell's assumption regarding Geological Uniformitarianism. In numerous cases, the "fittest," so called, simply failed to survive.
Two of the seven pillars of Darwinism have been examined and they are found to be so feeble that they cannot contribute any support for the total hypothesis. Rather, these two assumptions may be myths, involved in a possible myth complex. Astral catastrophism has engulfed and swamped both.
Even as astral catastrophism contradicts the Lyellian phase of Darwinism,
are there other areas of research and study which support another phase
of Darwinism, say, the Lamarckian phase? Does Mendelian genetics contradict
and thereby discredit Sir Charles' ideas, or does genetics harmonize and
thereby undergird the Danvinian-Lamarckian propositions? What is the import
of genetics upon, say,
Environmental Determinism, or upon Natural
Selection? It is to this second couplet of assumptions, Lamarckian
rather than Lyellian, to which attention is now directed.
2. Genetics and Darwinism
Subtheory 3: Environmental Determinism. Not all of Darwin's thinking was based on Lyell by any means. Actually, far more was based on Lamarckian ideas, which were part of the Darwin family heritage.
Lamarck proposed the idea that conditions in the environment control and govern changes (the hypothesized transmutations) in the natures of animals and plants. This was supposedly through the increased or induced use of certain organs, and the disuse followed by atrophy of others. Hence, characteristics were mysteriously acquired, developed, and transferred to the offspring in some vague feed-back mechanism, a notion which he believed and termed "pan-genesis." This, of course, is completely mistaken and such has been conceded even by most Darwinians for the better part of 50 years.
Although a portion of Darwin's thinking was based on Lyell, his writings reflect an even greater dependence and development of Lamarck's principles of hypothetical transmutation of species. Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather (1731-1802) had a botan-nical garden in which he had experimented with plant breeding and inbreeding, and he originally had been searching for the very principles which Mendel ultimately discovered. Erasmus Darwin, however, had proposed ideas similar to Lamarck's. This was a significant factor in the heritage of Charles Darwin, who was merely bringing these ideas, or at least the leadership of them, back into the family.
Lamarck's proposition of acquired characteristics was formerly used to explain the Negroid color of people living in the tropics. It was proposed that the greater volume of sunlight brought out blackness (melanism) in the skin. Similarly, this understanding was proposed as an explanation for baldness. Men became bald because their ancestors wore hats too often, and the function of the hair atrophied. Neither explanation has the slightest degree of validity, for both baldness and melanism are controlled through the genes and chromosomes, something about which little was known in Darwin's time.
Since Lamarckian thought has been completely discredited by genetics, modern Darwianians normally tend to underemphasize the influence of Lamarck upon Charles Darwin.8 But Charles was profoundly influenced by both his own grandfather and Lamarck and their ideas of Environmental Determinism. The thinking of Charles Darwin and Lamarck is not easily separated, as is evidenced by an analysis of Darwin's writings.
Although the idea of Environmental Determinism is not creditable, there are significant overtones in non-scientific areas which cannot be rightfully overlooked. Environmental Determinism may be poor genetics, but it is doctrinaire to Marxism. Marx's enthusiasm over the thrust of Darwin has already been mentioned in an earlier chapter, along with his offer to dedicate the English edition of his book Das Kapital to capitalist Darwin.9
Marx took Darwin's "science" two steps further, one step including incorporating Darwin's uniformitarian views with Feuerbach's atheistic theology.10 A uniformitarian doctrine of atheism resulted. A second step, then, was to replace the Creator with a new godling, the "enlightened," intellectual communist. Marx theorized that if the environment can change and determine the future of a strain, it can do the same thing for Homo sapiens, another species of animal. Thus, by taking command of the environment and by selecting changes, intellectual, atheistic man could take control of the direction of biological change (as well as economic, philosophical and political change). Man could thus control the future if a total monopoly of control could be established. (Marx insisted on a total global monopoly and nothing less.)
In this tyrannical way, a class of intellectual atheists might become their own godlings, controlling the future of the race even as an irrigating farmer can choose seed and direct paths of water flowing into his fields. The direct social and philosophical implications of this anti-scientific doctrine of Environmental Determinism are seldom appreciated by non-Marxians.
Here was the supposed biochemical mechanism for evolution. For fifty years this was considered the most brilliant part of the Darwinian hypothesis. But when DeVries rediscovered the Men-delian principles of heredity, he exposed what was considered the strongest part of the Darwinian hypothesis as the weakest. It was the first to be discredited.
For some six decades now, Darwinism has lacked a creditable mechanism. Usually a theory without a proven mechanism is considered an uncertain thing; yet among anti-spiritual humanistic thinkers, nothing is more certain than Darwinism. Thus, while humanists have applauded and aggressively promoted the evolutionary theory, they simultaneously have been oblivious to "details." The Mendelian laws, governing heredity, have clearly invalidated the notion of Environmental Determinism; they simultaneously are very severe on the Darwinian notion of Natural Selection.
Subtheory 4: Natural Selection (Inbreeding). One of the several ways in which Darwin considered the subject of sex and selection was through a study of inbred pigeons. Darwin observed that pigeons from many different regions of Europe possessed accentuated and varying characteristics. He postulated correctly that an historical phenomenon of inbreeding had occurred. He then postulated, again correctly, that inbreeding was the cause of specializing of strains. He further continued, this time with error, by saying that inbreeding was good, especially among superior specimens.
Darwin advocated inbreeding as the best means to develop superior strains. The idea that inbreeding concentrates hereditary characteristics is correct, but the idea that inbreeding is a beneficial principle is false. Darwin thought that changes in heredity were 50% favorable and 50% unfavorable. With inbreeding, and the matching of characteristics, this process of change, of both favorable and unfavorable, could be accentuated.
It is true that inbreeding does induce changes in appearance and qualities of strains. It is also true that nothing debilitates a strain faster than inbreeding. Conversely, nothing revives it faster than cross-breeding. We know this now because man has learned many of the principles of heredity, and the nature of mutations.
Mutations, it is now understood, are not superior. The germ tissue, and the organization of the molecules within the cells are sufficiently delicate and precise that any disruption, such as damage to a gene or shearing of a chromosome, is almost sure to be in the direction of disorganization and imbalance, that is to say, inferiority. One of the most striking examples of collective mutations are the mutations induced in massive amounts by the undersea atomic bomb at Bikini Atoll. The genetic results included abundant deformity and sterility among the fish population. Mutations, it is now known, are rarely adaptive, sometimes neutral, often harmful, and occasionally lethal. They are never described as "superior."
It is further known that mutations, in almost every case, are recessive rather than dominant. They are not expressed when paired with a normal gene, which is the dominant one. Darwin thought changes due to inbreeding would be sometimes superior, and sometimes inferior, and in arithmetrically equal ratios. This is far from the case. They are sometimes adaptive, but more likely are neutral or inferior in a proportion greater than 99% of the time.
Mutations are deranged genes and they may be inherited generation after generation. Ordinarily, they are not expressed But when inbreeding occurs, defective mutations are matched in increasingly higher proportions the closer the relationship of the parents become. Inbreeding is the process of matching defective mutations and the results frequently include biological weakness and deformity of any among the many body organs. Monstrosities are frequent. Albinism, diabetes and hemophilia are only three examples of this phenomena. Discoveries of new mutations, sometimes inherited by entire races, are being discovered almost every month, and the physiological areas which they control are very diverse, affecting different parts of the physiology in many different ways.
Darwin presented his hunches about heredity as scientific findings; they were not very scientific. His lack of knowledge in these matters is understandable; his lack of humility in propagating his views is hardly understandable, if he is considered a scientist. If he is considered a propagandist rather than an educator or scientist, then his assertiveness and almost messianic self-assurance becomes understandable. With his self-assured attitude, he considered verification unnecessary. And without verification, other academic figures promoted Darwin's ideas vigorously.
The cultural climate of the period following Darwin's publication is
deftly described by Hugh Iltis in his volume, Life of Mendel.
The psychological law that the contents of consciousness are sharply restricted applies, not only to individuals, but to generations; and since the consciousness of the epoch was entirely filled by the flood of ideas contained in the Darwinian theory and its consequences, people would not trouble themselves to make a place in their minds for the profound and peculiar ideas of Mendel, even though these were concerned with a kindred field.
The basic notion of Darwin's doctrine was the variability of the species whereas the basic idea of Mendel's (though none of Mendel's hearers or even the lecturer himself had clearly recognized this) was the constancy if not of the species, at least of their elements or characters, and the heredity factors producing these. . . . The trouble was this, and this only, that the time was not yet ripe for the understanding of Mendel's law either in Brunn or elsewhere. (Italics ours)11
In Darwin's endeavor to join the ideas of survival and animal conflict, he constantly dwelled upon the subjects of inbreeding, mating, sex, sexual characteristics, sexual ratios, and so forth.
In so doing, he appealed for his theory of emergence to such esoteric examples as mating among hermaphrodite sea slugs, the mental powers of dragonflies the love antics of the umbrella bird, sexual colors among spiders, and the protruding posteriors (buttocks) among Hottentot women. These are the kinds of examples which he used to "prove" his hypothesis.
Darwin endeavored to merge the ideas of organic transmutation, prolificness and survival, and he constantly, chapter after chapter, returns to and reiterates himself on subjects relating to sex, such as the fight among the cocks for the hen.
It must be kept in mind that Darwin lacked catastrophic perspectives as well as genetical perspectives. He also lacked endocrinological perspectives, of which sex is a part. It cannot be denied that there is some validity in this area, more related to the survival of individual animals than to survival of the strain or the entire species. However, Darwin had little else on which to base his appeal. Therefore it is contended that he markedly and repeatedly overemphasized this area.
However, in this overemphasis he opened the door to another development in modern thought, that through which the sex-oriented Freud entered.12 Freud rejected the principles of the Judeo-Christian ethic even as Marx did. However, he also rejected the methods and objectives of the Marxians. Among the three figures in the 19th century who successfully organized entirely new views of man (Darwin, Freud and Marx), Darwin is to be considered the central figure, for both of the others took ideas and views from Darwin. Darwin's influence upon Marx was primarily in the area of Environmental Determinism. And Darwin's influence upon Freud was primarily in the area of Sex and Selection. The introspective Freud wasn't much interested in economics or political upheaval.
DARWIN'S MARRIAGE. Darwin relied upon Lamarck very strongly for his biological assumptions. His interest in Lamarck, paralleling his grandfather's curiosity in biology, was pronounced at an early age. Following his voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, he not only studied under Lyell, but had a renewed interest in Lamarck's works. He paid many compliments to Lamarck in his later life, and in his later writings. But the greatest compliment he paid to Lamarck was when, at 30 years of age, in 1839, he "selected" his wife. Darwin lived as he taught. He taught inbreeding, and he inbred.
He considered himself to be superior. He also considered his wealthy cousin, Emma Wedgwood, another grandchild of the famous potter, Josiah Wedgwood, to be superior. He proposed. She accepted. They brought into the world ten inbred children. Darwin presumed that if two "superior" humans who were closely related mated, the chances for markedly superior offspring would be excellent.
From Darwin's letters and manuscript, Notebook on Transmutation of Species, it can be concluded that Charles and Emma, at their wedding breakfast, discussed such romantic subjects as inbreeding of animals, inbreeding of plants, transmutation of species, mating like with like, and never planting cauliflower and turnips which are unlike, in the same garden patch.
It is obvious that Charles mystically believed in the transmutation of species, although this had (or has) never been demonstrated. His ideas required such a process. It is also obvious that neither he nor his cousin Emma knew what they were talking about. Darwin not only advocated inbreeding for himself; he did for others also. When his youngest sister Caroline also decided to marry a cousin in 1838, Darwin not only was glad, but also gave his authoritative biological approval.13,14 Today, neither one of these marriages would be allowed by law.
According to Erasmus Darwin, Charles' brother
(his uncle and grandfather were also named Erasmus), there was a definite
question of biological weakness within the Darwin family, epilepsy being
reported among other maladies. Charles' answer to this was to improve the
strain through inbreeding.
The dread of hereditary ill health was not entirely illusory . . . And as it happened, of his ten children, one girl died shortly after birth, another, the much-beloved Annie, died in childhood, his youngest son, Charles, was a mental defective who lived only two years, Henrietta had a serious and prolonged breakdown at fifteen, and three sons suffered such frequent illness that Darwin regarded them as semi-invalids. Even if all these ailments were not the constitutional disorders he took them to be, they were real enough to warrant some amount of anxiety.15
Darwin's last son, Charles Jr., was born a mental defective and died 19 months after birth, just 14 months prior to the publication of Origin of Species. One wonders how Darwin could have had a more dramatic signal to check and recheck his ideas on inbreeding and natural selection. And with this degree of inbreeding, one can easily suspect that Mary Eleanor, who lived only three weeks, may also have had grave hereditary disadvantages.
In the case of Darwin's inbred children, they had only six great-grandparents. Normally, children have eight. Josiah Wedgwood Sr. and his wife doubled on each side. Darwin's mother had been Susanna Wedgwood, and his uncle was Josiah Wedgwood Jr., Emma's father (and now his father-in-law as well). Josiah Wedgwood Sr. had been a famous entrepreneur in the pottery-making industry (Wedgwood china) of 18th century England, having taken a commanding position not unlike that of Henry Ford in twentieth century America.
The fact that Josiah Wedgwood Sr. and his wife served on both sides of the family tree meant that each child inherited 50% of their genes from both of these great-grandparents. Each person has two sets of chromosomes and genes. Thus, the Darwin children had 12 gene pools from which to draw, rather than 16. This means that after pairing, Darwin's children possessed an average of 12 1/2 % identical pair of genes.16 Many of these genes must have been recessive mutations, normally dormant but under these conditions, expressed. This proportion is somewhat aggravated by the fact that Josiah Wedgwood Sr. is known to have been himself somewhat inbred, coming from the village of Burslem where intermarriages were common. His parents apparently had been second cousins.17
If Darwin was not a good biologist, he was an original thinker with an encyclopedic mind. He could catalog vast groups of biological data, even if he couldn't draw correct conclusions from that data. Darwin was not afflicted with shyness as was Newton, Orville Wright, Einstein, Edison or Steinmetz. Darwin's traits rather were presumptiveness, self-assertiveness, and audacity, among others. His presumptiveness, allied with his increasing atheism and the admiration he received from others, merged into an interesting and fairly predictable complex. His uniformitarian friends began to consider Darwin as the new Copernicus of biology, and Darwin was disposed to agree with them.
He was quick to act the part and play the role to the full. He was not one to wait and check results, investigate and analyze, while others might move into this dashing role which he thoroughly anticipated. And others, including Gray, Hooker, Huxley, Lyell, Spencer, and Wallace were working with this same thesis.
Something of this trait is also seen in the publication of his book. His social life centered around his inner circle of friends and the dilettante society of London's younger scions. He was a popular lecturer, and he knew how to choose contacts. Before his book came out, advance raves were publicized. The first edition went on sale on October 1, 1859. By 6:00 P.M., October 1, 1859, all orders had been filled, standing line customers had been served, and the entire edition was sold out. The unemployed Marx very likely was among those who stood in line on that day to receive his copy. In another 70 days, a second edition of another 1500 had been sold out. Europeans may not have a word for this kind of operation, but in the United States, this is known as "Madison Avenue science."
This illustrates the effectiveness of the pre-publication promotion and publicity. It reflects assistance he received from such figures as Gray, Hooker, Huxley, and Lyell. It reflects the enthusiasm with which the book anticipated and generated. It also reflects how uncritically it was received by most.18 The rising tide of intellectual anti-spiritual humanism would bring Darwin along, riding at the peak of its rising crest, which Darwin correctly anticipated.19 Marx, in his lazy poverty and in his atheistic dream world, was raptured by the implications proposed by this revolutionary naturalist.
This brief discussion of Darwin, his heritage, his career, his marriage, his inbred children, his travels, his associations, etc., are essential in understanding his hypothesis and the series of assumptions upon which his hypothesis is based. There is much that is left unsaid in this brief resume concerning his college life, his travels on the Beagle, his infection with trapano-somes and his health, his economic life, his married life and his wife's evaluation of her husband.
Perhaps it should be included that Emma Darwin never was strongly sympathetic with her husband's endeavors or his atheism although she loyally took care of him. After he died, and their son Francis undertook his famous father's biography, Emma refused to allow some of Darwin's more extreme anti-spiritual statements to be included. But from this, it is further suspected that Darwin was more of an anti-spiritual propagandist than a scientist.
Darwinism has been presented to the world as a scientific proposition; therefore it must stand the tests of scientists more than of educators, philosophers or skilled propagandists. Genetics has pitched a first hard strike against the Darwinian hypothesis. It rejects the two Darwinian assumptions of Environmental Determinism and Natural Selection (Inbreeding, whether historically random or intentional). The importance of this is seldom realized. Environmental Determinism supposedly was the finest point Darwin made; it was the first one to fall. But here was the supposed mechanism for emergence. With its rejection, Darwinism has no mechanism. Certainly genetics, undergirding the idea of the stability of the species rather than the variability of the species, gives no assistance.
Formation or malformation of the organs of the physiology are controlled not only by the genes, but also by the system of endocrine glands. If genetics does not allow the Darwinian assumptions, perhaps an alternative area will assist.
Thus far, genetics has pitched a first hard strike against the Darwinian
proposition. Astral catastrophism has pitched a second hard strike against
the Darwinian proposition. A second strike does not eliminate a batter,
but it opens the door to a sudden third strike, and a third strike does
mean elimination. It is to the area of endocrinology that attention is
3. Endocrinology and Darwinism
Subtheory 5: Comparative Embryology. The principle of recapitulation (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) went out a generation ago, and it hardly deserves consideration in equal status with the other five "pillars of support." This idea observes that there is a parallelism in the development of mammalian embryos. The same organs all develop in a similar, sequential pattern. The eyes, for instance, appear at comparable stages, as do teeth, tails, and other organs. This, it formerly was held, was another evidence of Darwinism.
Without contradictory data, this elementary observation might seem to support Darwinian thought. On the other hand, it might easily lend support to the proposition of a common Architect of all life, a common Creator. Every architect or builder proceeds in sequential patterns, even though the particular plan varies. Thus, Comparative Embryology is a philosophical and speculative matter--an empirical matter--and not a scientific matter.
Five of the seven pillars of the Darwinian superstructure have been
examined and none thus far have been able to bear the stress of the briefest
analysis. Two are left. One proceeds deeper into the field of endocrinology.
The other, the overriding requirement of a biochemical mechanism, will
also be examined. How strong and impressive is the famed superstructure
of Darwinian thought when one peeks under the trappings and the imposing
facade, and when one tests the structural strength?
Subtheory 6: Apemen. (Missing Links). Endocrinology is the study of glands and hormones and their effects on the organs within the body. It includes both fetal and post-fetal stages. Since the Apemen proposition cites skeletal systems-- bones and dentition--as its basis for concluding emergence, it is to the endocrine branch of medicine to which our attention is now directed. It is the endocrine system which controls both the formation and/or the malformation of the skeletal system.
The skeletal systems of the fossil men are clearly out of scale and proportion with the skeletal systems of modern man. Furthermore, they resemble in certain ways the skeletal systems of apes, and are thus reasoned to be an intermediary step. This explanation offers an easy, logical, progressive, and uniformitarian pattern which at first appears fairly simple. But upon closer scrutiny, it may be not quite that simple.
In both prenatal and postnatal stages, the development of the skeletal system is dictated by the genes, but is organized by hormones secreted from the endocrine glands. Other physiological systems such as the circulatory system, the digestive system, the muscular system, the nervous system (including the brain), and the reproductive system are also affected by hormones. A hormone imbalance or malfunction in the fetal stage could result in malfunction of any of these systems or organs, not just the skeletal system.
Proponents of Darwinism have grossly neglected this basic approach and have been content to measure the prognathous jaws of antediluvians, along with apes, humans and monkeys, and have proceeded to make premature conclusions. They have been content to take the external measurements in terms of millimeters of brain cavities, clavicles, dentition, mandibles, and supraorbital ridges. They have then made comparative lists, drawn up tables of measurements, and have proceeded to draw conclusions which may be quite superficial.
The proper approach to the Apemen proposition must be concerned with biochemical mechanisms, and in this case, endocrinology is basic. Darwinists have illustrated that fossil men possessed apelike skeletal characteristics in varying degrees. This is partly true, but the uniformitarian assumption of a transition from apehood to manhood must be tested. It must not be accepted in such a rudimentary way.
(A) ACROMEGALY. It very easily can be demonstrated that twentieth century men, possessing no apelike genes, may-- due to a certain type of endocrine disorder--develop "apelike" characteristics in their skin, hair, metabolism, and skeletal system. This is known as acromegaly. Itis caused by the abnormal resumption of growth hormone after maturation. A reactivation of this particular function of the pituitary gland--the master gland--causes renewed bone growth. Since at maturation the epiphyses close (the bones fuse), they can no longer elongate and therefore must grow by thickening. The cause of acromegaly is not well understood, but malfunctions in pituitary tissues may be one cause. Today, this skeletal malformation occurs in about one person in 10,000, in males and females in equal ratios, and usually in persons in their twenties and thirties--about one or two decades after maturation.
The description of a person afflicted with acromegaly sounds like a description of Neanderthal Man, and the changes are not merely limited to skeletal malformations.
In the following excerpts from medical textbooks, there are similarities
of the descriptions with Apemen. Since acromegaly is considered
a basic physiological imbalance, it is medically classified as a retrogressive
development. Here is a case which the medical profession describes as retrogression,
a case strikingly similar to what Darwinists term evolution:
As in many endocrine types, there is considerable resemblance among all acromegalics. The large extremities, awkward movements, thickened features, and drooping shoulders with hands falling near the knees in advanced cases, give the picture of Simian (apelike) man, and where gigantism has preceded the acromegalic changes, of a primitive ape-like giant. Great strength, however, may give place to exhaustion and weakness in the later stages ...
The skull is considerably thickened, the ridges becoming very prominent, and the external occipital protuberance enlarged. The cranial sutures may be obliterated. Even more marked are the changes of the facial bones: thickening and enlargement of the zygomatic arches, of the malar bones, and especially of the lower jaw, which becomes prognathous through overgrowth and also through changes in the temporo-manibular joint. The teeth become spaced wide apart as the jaw increases in width. The clavicles are thickened, and the antero-posterior diameter of the chest is greatly increased...20
The patient with fully developed disease presents a striking appearance which, when once seen, is never forgotten. The hands become large due to a broadening and thickening of the fingers and palms, so that they assume a "spade-like" appearance. They feel stiff and clench with some difficulty. The facial features coarsen, the lips thicken, while the nose becomes large and bulbous. The head increases in size and the supraorbital ridges become prominent and overhanging. There occurs a protrusion of the lower jaw, the so-called "prognathism," due essentially to thickening and overgrowth of the mandible. As a result, the teeth become widely spaced and override the upper dentition . . . The patients frequently stoop due to kyphosis associated with enlargement and thickening of the vertebrae . . . They are sullen and vacillating, although mentally quite alert and normally endowed.21
Post-Darwinian evolutionists have assumed and taught that Neanderthal proportions are due to some admixture or transmutation of apelike genes. They have further assumed and taught that these proportions, formed by some transmuted ape genes, have been modified by some as yet unascertained biochemical mechanism. But Neanderthal Man is an excellent parallel to the modern description of acromegaly.22
If antediluvians commonly had acromegaly, they would have appeared "apelike," yet possessed no ape genes whatsoever. Other "apemen" seemingly were afflicted with acromegaly, but this may have been complicated by further endocrine disorders, such as hypothyroidism. What post-Darwinian evolutionists propose as emergence has no biochemical basis, but similar conditions are found, in easily documented medical data, in retrogressive or imbalanced forms of man.
Neanderthal Man, Peking Man, Zinjanthropus, and other fossil men, involve matters quite beyond merely skeletal proportions. Neanderthal Man, for instance, was found under glacial till. Any explanation of the total picture must include not only his variant skeletal formation, but also a good analysis of the cause of his abnormal entombment--in this case the catastrophe of the Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch. Peking Man was found within a thick layer of compressed alluvium in the heart of the arid zone of China. Any full discussion of Peking Man must include the total picture which includes the deposition (and very possible drowning) of this antediluvian in the heart of arid Asia, and such theory must therefore account for vast volumes of water in this now arid and distinctly non-marine location.
East Africa - The location of the Great Rift Valley
|Zinjanthropus involves another situation. This form was found in Tanganyika,
Africa, on the edge of one of the spurs of the Great Rift Valley. Zinjanthropus
was found in alternating and successive layers of shales and volcanic ash.
Even as any explanation for Neanderthal Man must explain glacial till and
the Ice Epoch, so any explanation for Zinjanthropus must explain shales
caused by tidal activity on massive scales along with simultaneous massive
volcanic eruptions. Gravitational disturbances of a celestial nature and
simultaneous upwelling of fluid oceans and magma can account for this kind
How old was Zinjanthropus? Dr. Leaky, following classical Lyellian thinking, and the Lyellian time scale, says 1,700,000 B.C., adding a little to Lyell's classical 1,000,000 B.C. for safety. However, the catastrophic thesis is that the orogenetic and hydrographical phenomena which entombed Zinjanthropus burst forth on our planet something like 5,000 years ago.23
Thus, it is to be pointed out that the fossil men and their skeletal abnormalities cannot be considered to the exclusion of the forces which entombed them, no more than can the mammoths, dinosaurs, or other fossil types. Could it be that fossil men lived in a markedly different physical environment, even as has been suggested in the preceding chapter? Could it be that their atmosphere was reorganized in at least five different ways, compared to the present atmosphere? Is there a relation between this earlier physical environment and differing endocrine responses? Could the catastrophe which terminated that atmospheric regime also be the same cataclysm which buried the fossil men? Could it be, for instance, that man in that age lived much longer, and thus had much more skeletal time in which acromegalic bone growth might occur, as is suggested by Figure 25 on antediluvian longevity?
|Zinjanthropus had skeletal features which seem mildly deranged when
compared to the norm of this age, but they do not particularly reflect
a transition from apehood to manhood. Rather, they reflect acromegalic
disorders coinciding with other major endocrine maladjustments. For instance,
Zinjanthropus had some inexplicable dentition. The incisors are underdeveloped,
whereas the molars are overdeveloped. This is a malfunction of growth hormone
and is a different pattern or sequence from the current norm. Evidences
of differing waves, periods or sequences of growth hormone in the antediluvian
environment were not limited to man.
All mammals, and seemingly all animals, experienced comparable variations of growth hormone. The imperial elephant, the mammoth, and the mastodon had extremely long tusks, which often curved 180° and often crossed. Modern elephant tusks (pachyderm dentition) do not achieve this, but then modern pachyderms may not live as long. Similarly, one may compare the saber-toothed tiger to the modern tiger, the saber-toothed mesonyx to the modern wolf, and the saber-toothed smilodon to the modern panther. All had oversized incisors, compared to the norm of our current age. Zinjanthropus, rather than having oversized incisors, had oversized molars. This suggests a different sequence or wave of growth hormone, possibly related to certain dietary fluctuations. He also possessed other variable proportions of cranial malformation. Here is a reverse parallelism between the dentition of Zinjanthropus and the more common pattern for dentition of the saber-toothed mammals, neither of which are normal to modern standards
Acromegaly, like oversized dentition, is a proper function of growth hormone at an improper time or in an abnormal amount. When acromegaly occurs in our age, it is the abnormal, but it may have been the normal in the earlier age. When it occurs in our age, the lower jaw begins to expand, becomes prognathous, and overrides the upper jaw. The dentition becomes more widely spaced. The posture sags as the clavicle thickens. The supraorbital ridges expand and the eyebrows protrude. The zygomatic arches thicken. The temporo-mandibular joint and cranium expand. The vertebrae thicken, as do the metacarpals and meta-tarsals (fingers and toes). In addition to skeletal changes, the hair coarsens, metabolism changes, and the psychology of the person may change although the intellectual powers may remain acute. The basic genetic material has not changed. There has been no transmutation of species, as Darwinians intuitively assert.
Great Rift Valley - Olduvai Gorge
Again it is recalled that Darwin knew nothing about genetics and nothing about endocrinology, and he rejected what had been suggested concerning catastrophism, Creationism, the antediluvian canopy, the earlier longevity and related matters which are evidenced in Genesis. In proposing his new view of man, via continuous emergence from lower forms, he showed an element of genius but also an element of rather arbitrary guessing. His genius is shown in his ability to organize and reorganize items into new patterns; his arbitrariness is shown in his lack of critical testing and in his refusal to recognize either possibilities or probabilities of his error.
(B) GIGANTISM. Acromegaly, a thickening in bone structure after maturation, is one phase of the function of growth hormone. The other phase is gigantism, which is caused by an increase in the rate of growth hormone before maturation. Antediluvians matured more slowly than men in the present age, but after maturation, they degenerated even more slowly. Growth hormone, either in excessive amounts or over greater lengths of time before maturation, results in gigantism, whereas growth hormone in excessive amounts after maturation results in acromegaly.
Many mammals in fossil form exhibit a tendency to gigantism; they often are twice the size of their current counterparts. Among examples are bears, camels, panthers, pigs, rhinoceroses, elephants, tigers, and wolves. Fossil birds were much larger than their modern counterparts. Insects also were larger. Dragonflies with twenty- and thirty-inch wing spreads have been found, and the examples of the fossil reptiles (dinosaurs and turtles) also show great extremes. Furthermore, fossil flora (plant life) also exhibit these same tendencies toward gigantism.
Although generally speaking, gigantism was common in the earlier age, it was by no means uniform. Sometimes a rule is proved by exceptions. Two exceptions are the horse and the sloth. Fossil horses (eohippuses) have been found, some 15 to 20 inches high. This is an example of an animal, large in our age, but small in the previous age.
On the other hand, there are fossil forms of sloths which weighed 10,000 pounds. This is an example of an animal, small in our age, but very large in the previous age. Thus, there are exceptions to the general rule of antediluvian gigantism, and the exceptions run in both directions.
In the matter of gigantism, dimensions can be somewhat deceptive. Brachiosaurus,
for instance, was twice as tall as the imperial elephant. But he outweighed
the elephant by about 45 tons--some 50 tons to 5 tons. Gigantism in the
earlier age can be illustrated by the following list which gives the length
of fossil reptiles. A list of large fossil mammals is also given:
| Large Reptiles
(Size to the left)
in height at the shoulders
|87 1/2 ft.||Diplodocus||
It can very well be assumed that many species and varieties of animals in the fossil record have yet to be unearthed. But enough fossil animals exist to support the conclusion that different patterns of growth hormone, and probably also longevity, occurred in the previous age. Among its results were both acromegaly for some forms, gigantism for other forms, and both for yet other forms. This occurred not only in man and in other mammals, but in reptiles, birds, insects and apparently all fauna, and flora also.
Growth hormone and acromegaly are one endocrine imbalance which is suspected as being common in the previous age. Another is hypothyroidism, an undereffectiveness of the thyroid Eland. While growth hormone and hyperpituitarism contribute to acromegaly and gigantism, hypothyroidism contributes to dwarfism. These factors seemingly were all inextricably tied in with the principle of differing rates of maturation and longevity in the earlier age, and the Greenhouse Effect.
(C) HYPOTHYROIDISM (CRETINISM). Another hormone malfunction, hypothyroidism, involves the thyroid gland, the controlling mechanism of body metabolism. In the earlier age, there was a lack of winds, due to the heat equilibrium. The resultant lack of both horizontal and vertical mixing of the atmosphere meant no rains or mature river systems. But the abundant water vapor and diurnal dew resulted in plenty of moisture, and abundant swamps. These factors imply that soluble minerals (salts of bromine, cadmium, calcium, chlorine, cobalt, copper, fluorine, iodine, manganese, potassium, and sodium) would not be dispersed very widely in nature and there would be little in the way of leached soils, a circumstance which would contribute to soil structure. Some of these minerals are required by the human physiology, if only in trace amounts. Iodine deficiency would be likely in soils scattered across the Earth's surface in that earlier climatological regime. Fluorine, an important element in bone salts, including dentition, perhaps was even more poorly distributed.
Iodine in trace amounts is vital to the proper functioning of the metabolic
processes. When iodine is lacking in the diet, or when the gland itself
malfunctions, hypothyroidism results. Following is a description of the
effects of this disorder:
The enhancement of skeletal maturation by thyroid hormones alone has also been applied by Walker in comparing skeletal age and chronological age in newborn rats. The influence of thyroid hormones on bone growth is of clinical importance because of the abnormal osteogenesis in cretinism or juvenile myxedema. Thyroid hormone therapy restores ossification in children, but hyperthyroidism in adult life may cause osteoporosis.24
In general, thyroid deficiency in the young cretin will result in stunted brain development. It is for this reason that so many cretins are of low intelligence. Since the damage once sustained is at least in part permanent, they rarely attain their full mental potentialities . . .
The adult cretin is a dwarf, rarely being over 4 feet tall. He walks with a waddling, shuffling gait, in part due to the laxity of the hip joints and the bent legs. Curvature of the spine tends to shorten his erect height. The head is that of a normal-sized individual, but appears large when resting atop a dwarf . . .
The orbits are large, the nose is broad and flat, the bony part being underdeveloped and the cartilaginous portion flabby. . . . The head is large and there is a wide open anterior fontanelle and frontal suture. The nose is broad, flat and depressed. The cheeks are prominent.25
The typical hypothyroid child is dwarfed, and the ratio of the upper and lower skeletal segments remain that of a younger child. The naso-orbital development is infantile, so that the bridge of the nose is flat and broad, causing the eyes to appear wide-spaced and the nose is short and underdeveloped. Osseous development is retarded, dental development is retarded and defective, and epiphyseal dygenesis is frequently present.26
Even in our age, with the soils of the Earth having been washed with mineral-dispersing flood-tides, there are areas in which iodine is lacking in the soil, and in the diet (without iodized salt). These regions include the glaciated Alpine region of Europe, the Himalayan-Tibetan region of Asia, the glaciated Scandinavian Upland of Northern Europe, and the glaciated Canadian Shield and Great Lakes Region of North America. Cretinism was a common condition in Switzerland up to and even into the twentieth century. In World War I, 3% of the draftees in the Swiss army were rejected for some degree of cretinism.
Cretinism, if related to lack of iodine in the diet, becomes increasingly prevalent in successive generations. For instance, a mother with a degree of cretinism will carry a cretin-oriented fetus. This fetus, when born, will already have incipient cretinism, which it may or may not overcome following birth, depending on the diet. Thus, the degree of iodine deficiency in a mother's diet is particularly important because it not only affects the mother but the unborn fetus as well. Thus, children can be born both with cretinism, and can develop it after birth. The degree of iodine deficiency will fluctuate as the diet may change, and trace amounts of iodine become available. Hence, the degree of the affliction of cretinism will change and, depending on how early it is caught, many of the conditions, including skeletal deformation, can be partially corrected or reversed.
Based on the climatic equilibrium and the lack of rain and running water in the previous age, it is postulated that a lack of iodine was common in the soils of many of the regions of the Earth. In marine locations, this would be partly offset by the availability of iodine from the oceanic reservoir. Iodine deficiency is considered to have been particularly common in heartland (non-marine) locations, at a substantial distance from the oceans.
Hypothyroidism further complicates the skeletal system, with its tendency to produce a particular type of dwarfism. Thus acromegaly, related to gigantism, and hypothyroidism, related to dwarfism, are considered to have been simultaneous factors in the earlier age.
The relationship between the endocrine glands is complex, including a series of feedback (reciprocal) relationships. When one gland does not function sufficiently, the master gland, the pituitary, which secretes at least 14 distinct hormones, will proceed to secrete a hormone which will stimulate the particular gland involved in the malfunction. Thus, when the thyroid does not function efficiently, the pituitary will produce an additional amount of thyroid-stimulating hormone in order to maintain the needed balance. In this way, hypothyroidism (too little thyroid, caused by a deficiency of iodine in the diet) will cause hy-perpituitarism. Hyperpituitarism, including additional amounts of growth hormone, may be correlated with acromegaly. In this indirect way, a lack of iodine in the diet while causing hypothyroidism may also reciprocally cause hyperpituitarism.
Gigantism, already noted throughout the fossil record, was apparently related to longevity in the earlier age. It has already been proposed that longevity was the norm in the previous age. The Biblical record takes considerable pains to make this point clear. Scriptures log the lives of antediluvians in such a way that 10% of their lives were lived prior to maturation (when the epiphyses seal), and 90% after maturation. This compares with a 25-75% ratio in the present age.
In Genesis (6:4) the record states that "there were giants in the earth
in those days." Whether this refers to giant animals or a large race of
men is not clear; this writer presumes the former.27
However it has been posited that cavewall art in New Mexico includes reproductions
of dinosaurs, even as cavewall art in France and Spain give reproductions
of bison, mammoths and reindeer. Whichever way it is taken, it does nothing
to contradict our proposition that more growth hormone, throughout the
animal kingdom, was one feature of that age. Another Genesis statement
in a similar category is as follows:
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves (Genesis 1:20, Amplified).
Although the great sea monsters are not elaborated upon, it is striking to recount how impressive some of the aquatic dinosaurs must have been.
Thus it is believed that in mammals, both acromegaly and regional cretinism were normal for that age, even as gigantism was also normal among birds, fish, reptiles, plant life, and numerous oversized mammals, including ostriches, pigs, pachyderms, rhinoceroses, and many others.
For gigantic animals in that age, a long list can be cited, and it might include such interesting specimens as the agriotherium, the alticamelus, the amphicyon, the baluchitherium, the brontops, the moropus, the syndoceras, the psittachtherium and the teleo-ceras among others. We do not consider that uniformitarianism has to explain the manner of the life and the demise of the hundreds of extinct species locked into the fossil record. If they can do an adequate job of explanation on 50 or 75, this should be sufficient.
Concerning the Darwinian proposition, one thing is clear from the fossil record. It is this: the number of species which exist has not increased in number since the Flood Catastrophe, as Darwinians would suppose. Clearly there has been a decline in the number of species which presently inhabit the Earth, compared to the previous age. This observation is merely one of many dozen but this too does nothing to bolster the Darwinian case.
Evolution has already experienced two solid strikes, the first from
genetics and the second from astral catastrophism. The second strike is
not the final one. It is not claimed that genetics and astral catastrophism,
alone, refute the Darwinian mythology. However they do open the way for
the third strike which is Catastrophic Environmental Determinism, or
a comparable term, Antediluvian Endocrinology.
4. Catastrophic Environmental Determinism (Antediluvian Endocrinology)
This subject of Environmental Determinism becomes quite ironic. This was supposedly Darwin's great stroke. It was his strongest thesis. It was his biochemical mechanism. And it was the first to be disproved and rejected. Now, through Catastrophic Environmental Determinism (Antediluvian Endocrinology), understood within the framework of the Greenhouse Effect, this last subtheory of Darwinism rapidly disintegrates. Darwinism indeed is not proven by Environmental Determinism; it is dis-proven by it, when catastrophically cast. If this is true, then the logical conclusion is that the supposedly best part of Darwin's theory was actually the worst part.
This is something like Scipio (Scipio Africanus), who defeated the redoubtable Hannibal with the redoubtable Hannibal's own patented set of tactics, in the Second Punic War between Carthage and Rome. Darwinism has stumbled across its own ladder. It has taken a third strike right down the center, leading across its area of supposed strength.
Thus genetics has rejected two of the Darwinian subtheories:
(1) Environmental Determinism (Uniformitarianly Cast)
(2) Natural Selection (Random Inbreeding)
Thus astral catastrophism has rejected two more Darwinian propositions:
(3) Geological Uniformitarianism
(4) Survival of the Fittest
And a fifth assumption has been classified as empirical and not scientific:
And a sixth assumption has been found to be faulty:
(6) The Alleged Apemen (Missing Links)
5. The Requirement of a Biochemical Mechanism
There is a seventh subtheory, an elusive one. At the present time it must be considered a negative rather than a positive one. It is the lack of biochemical mechanism. Neither genetics nor endocrinology seem able to supply a mechanism for Darwinism. Astronomy, when viewed from our solar system's catastrophic past, is no help either. And any respectable theory needs a mechanism. Evolution has none, and never has, although it seemingly had one before Lamarckianism became discredited. Why hasn't one been generated (or should we say, evolved) ?
Is it because Darwinian proponents have not had sufficient time? Will another 30 or 50 years be required to fill this vacuum? Until something better is brought forward as a biochemical mechanism, Darwinism, like alchemy, must be considered a fact of history, but not a fact of science.
The day may come, perhaps not soon, when advocates of Darwinism will
closely re-examine the facts. They will scrupulously sift uniformitarianism.
They will perhaps be driven toward one of two conclusions:
(1) Uniformitarianism and emergence are invalid as principles, or
(2) Emergence might conceivably occur through and because of primordial catastrophes.
Thus some may very well conclude "evolution by catastrophism."28 This would be quite a change from the current outlook. The present outlook of the humanistic hierarchy is that catastrophism is a very dangerous principle.
While some may propose the idea of emergence by jumps, through catastrophism, any logic for this idea has yet to be laid down. Over and against this, there is always the principle of Creation. This principle is, in the writer's estimation, the most reasonable. And if man, along with the rest of the animal kingdom, has been created, then the Master Architect has achieved something more complex than the wonder of our galaxy, or even the stellar universe. And if man is created, then this implies he was created for a purpose, which in turn is suggestive of man's responsibility to his Maker. This is against the very grain of anti-spiritual humanism. Thus there are dilemmas which the humanist needs to face. And one possible way out of this dilemma is to return to a pro-spiritual type of humanism. Concerning this subject, more is discussed in Chapter XII, our final chapter.
Before coming to the closing chapter, there are two more uniformitarian
propositions which merit scrutiny. Thus far, uniformitarianism has been
discussed relative to
(1) the Earth's hydrography, and the evidences of a global Flood
(2) the Earth's lithography, and the evidences of global mountain uplifts
(3) the Earth's Ice Epoch, and the evidences of cascading celestial ice
(4) the Earth's celestial motifs in literature, as recorded by its ancient peoples
(5) the Earth's primordial climatology, the Greenhouse Effect
(6) the Earth's biology and the evidences of regional and serial Creation
Our next discussion of uniformitarianism will view regions beyond our planet, Earth, even as previous discussions have been mostly centered within the Earth's triple-fluid anatomy. The regions beyond our Earth may be classified in four ways: (1) the zone of the Earth's gravitational domain, including the region of the Moon, (2) the zone of the Sun's gravitational domain, including the region halfway out to the nearer stars, (3) the region of our Milky Way galaxy, with its many diversities, and (4) the universe of galaxies beyond. It is to these celestial regions toward which attention is now turned.
"The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch" by Donald W. Patten - is ©1966 by Pacific Meridian Pub. Co.