Natural Choice Examined

Among common men observing things as most do today the view accepting and affirming the spheres of reality outside the physical plain where we reside here on Earth is normally presented as irrational.


The truth would be rather contrary. - A person only familiar with solid objects whose thought has been accustomed only to them would find difficulty in relating to liquids he has never seen, - when hearing about them due to his own limited ability of a rather harsh mind he might find or suspect the idea irrational. - A person only familiar with solids and liquids - living in a theoretical world (though of course impossible) where only these two exist, - would find it hard to understand - initially at least, - what gas is. - Unless a person of perhaps unusual abilities - assuming he himself lives in a worlds where all his fallow men too share the same reality and the same conditions, - he would most likely reject as idea of such a state if this is the custom taught in the described society in which he lives.

If a person to whom liquid is totally foreign - as in the first example, - hears about it at first, - it might be very difficult to convince him - describing it to him, - that it is something different from sand. Particularly if it is an intellectual person confident in his inferior abilities of inflexible thinking.

Further, - if one is familiar only with lifeless matter, never having seen any plant or any form of a living organism, - particularly not any living flesh bearing a mind and motion, - his mental processes and particularly those of thought would naturally not be accustomed in a reasonable way to dealing with it.

His mind would not be one of accordance with such a reality as external surroundings. - His mental abilities would practically not be naturally able to match such perception and deal with it in a full and sufficient manner. - Needing to relate to the occult being only familiar with ordinary life as usually faced in ordinary society today is somewhat similar to the above examples.


This is not the direct subject of the post, but it seems in place to preface it. - Other examples might be brought in other posts. Here I will relate to the renowned theory as the title implies.

Charles Darwin, - 1884

It is particularly amazing, as it seems, after all I will say here, - that this theory has been able to persevere and sustain itself until today. The faults I intend to relate to are apparently so obvious and severe, - that it seems difficult to understand how could this idea not only have been accepted as reasonable - but also have been so widely viewed as more-or-less the sole explanation for the existing reality. People simply see it as a fact. Both common men and scientists. This is obviously no secret and has not been.


First, - the main idea of this theory is of a fruit of a need. Or of a fruit of a natural chance, - I mean here “chance” in the sense of an opportunity. - Obviously it is not active today within humanity. So for at least several hundreds of years.

The need or the chance is the engine. - It could, - supposedly, - improve the features of animals through its proposed mechanism, - giving them higher abilities either in the mental or physical fields. - That is to say - the level or amount of improvement would be in accord with the conditions in the environment and the possible achievements useful for the organism at the relevant time.

I will not try to define exactly what would be reasonable improvement for various organisms such as bacteria, sea weed, plants, fish of different sizes, and animals ranging from whichever low forms to monkeys and apes. One reason may sufficiently be that the theory is unreasonable anyway, - and as a general rule is unequivocally not any significant engine behind evolution, - which means that in most cases - as it seems, - this amount to be estimated simply does not exist. Apart from that anyone can use his common sense.

I do not intend to try and make an exact definition for humans either, similarly.

The obvious will be enough. - Given that the process was supposed to have acted a considerable time ago, as for humanity, we can very easily get some reasonable estimation which might be shocking. - Let us try and consider what mental abilities might have been able to develop through this process: - Consider the conditions under which humanity might have been and what or which benefits arising from mutations could have been possible. - How high could this have lifted the human mind? - Today we are familiar with the abilities of the human mind, no doubt, at least to some extent. - Sky scrapers are one result manifesting its abilities. The Internet is another. The genius of artists and men of spirit such as Mozart, Goethe, Dogen, Gauss and of course a considerable number of others is one other exquisite example. - The potential lying  in the human mind is already known to be enormous. The examples here are enough. We need not go beyond that.
What situation in a primitive surroundings as man has been in during the foremost line of his development could have been promoting in a way which would lead to such achievements?

None.

This is utterly impossible. However far we would like to choose to extend or pull the limits of random chance, with any probability which could by any view be considered reasonable, - it would be impossible. The fact is so extreme that it does seem explicitly and considerably silly it could have been overlooked - as it has been, - beforehand.

I could continue with further explanations, but I am quite certain anyone interested with reasonable common sense could observe the reality for himself and see the more complete picture. - What real conditions might have produced might have been at most a mind capable of building a few huts or using primitive language. - Perhaps constructing the simplest levels of society, even democracy as an idea would have been too complicated. - The spring - the apparent spring, - off primitive society where and when these processes (of natural choice) would have been still active, - to what we know lives in potential in the human mind, - would have been practically amazingly off limit.

- This bounce could never have taken place.

The reason the theory has been taken as it has, it seems, is that - roughly thinking at least, - the only alternative considered to exist was the Biblical story of creation. In western society of course. - And through eliminating the other alternative, stupid humans came to imagine there is no other way and Darwin’s theory is inevitable. - This is not a central issue here, but it does seem to a great deal this is what happened.

A second point: - The theory begins with a mutation. Else than some point I will relate to in the end. - This is a mistake in copying a file. The occurrence is very rare. I don’t know how rare. Then there is the question of whether the mutation has been useful or harmful. (or just useless anyway) Obviously, - in the great majority of cases, - it will be of no use. Then the process does not begin. - Only on occasions when a mutation, by pure chance, - has been such that is of aid in some way to the organism, - is it included in the process of natural choice. - But this is still far from being enough.

Consider an organ such as an eye. - It would take a terribly great number of mutations to bring about its appearance. - It could of course never have been constructed by a few mutations. - But this is not all: - the question here would be after how many such mutations would the organ beginning to form, - the organ in its initial appearance and development, - begin to bring any sort of use to the organism it is part of. - Only at the point it is beginning to be of any real use and benefit, - is the process beginning to work. Is the wheel of Darwin’s supposed idea beginning to slowly turn. - Now the question would be the chance of a consequent line of a considerable number of mutations all occurring consequently one after the other before the process has been able to come into action. What would be the chance, - the probability, - of such a series of mutations taking place under such conditions? - Zero, - approximately. - In addition to the rarity of mutations in general, and to the rarity of those of them which would initially be of any relevance to the process, - there would be the impossible probability of the necessary line or chain of consequent mutations in need for the development and appearance of organs absent in the organism beforehand. This is a stupid and impossible theory. Mind you. And mind all.


If you find the general presentation intuitively insufficient, you might relate to practical calculation. - If the probability for the occurrence of a mutation is x, the probability for the occurrence of two would be x². - The probability of the occurrence of 6 mutations would be x⁶ and for the occurrence of 50 of them x⁵⁰. - It doesn’t take much to thrust the chances high into nowhere. - It explodes exponentially.

If you need the mutations to appear in a certain order this would diminish the probability further, if we need n mutations to appear in full order - this would mean the probability would not be xⁿ as before but would be further divided by the factorial - [(xⁿ)/(n!)]. - This would be for example for 5 consecutive mutations x⁵/120 instead of just x⁵. - This additional point isn’t really necessary or very important but it still seems to be worth mentioning.


This post is mainly about these two points, - the attainment of humans being far above anything which might have been achieved through the proposed theory, and the need - in many cases, - for a continuous series of a considerable number of independent occurrences of a distinct deformation which would be to appear before the operation of the natural process is beginning to take its place, - a need which would make the relevant probability fade into nothing like a senseless mosquito trying to battle a basketball on its way to score down the loop or a football flying gracefully into the top right corner of the rectangular goal set in the game’s field.

There is a third point though, not less important as it seems.

Some time ago I came across an article in a magazine called Epoch Times related to the subject. - My mother is getting it for free. - It is about three scientists - James Tour, John Walton and David Berlinski who disagree with the theory of natural choice on grounds irrelevant to my two points above. They are mainly concerned with questions in the field of chemistry of how could the DNA develop beforehand. This is where the “some point” I said I will relate to in the end comes in. - I am not a chemist. It doesn’t seem to me it is possible to take a serious stand as for the subject without knowledge in the field. One can only generally obtain an impression off what others are saying. You can guess who seems serious but you can’t discuss the issues themselves off common normal acquaintance with general issues widely known.

However, - as I thought, prior to reading this article, such knowledge does not seem necessary: - The DNA is a complex structure. - This fact is not secret and not controversial. - It is obvious that the process of the natural choice does not take place in the construction of the DNA itself. This means this complex, very complex, structure was supposed to have come to existence basically (or completely) through mere random chance. The DNA was not yet known when Darwin lived. - So the theory started off not relating to the matter. I don’t know the historical facts but I guess it was already accepted before the additional piece of information referred to here came about.

I don’t think one should consult biologists. I think one should consult mathematicians. This seems quite obviously to be a third severe fault with the idea all contemporary intellectuals in general would imagine to be an obvious sign of advance and progress. Fuck those idiots, frail minded and childishly confident.

I even wonder why have the scientists I mentioned above thought the particular chemical process itself so important in that light.

So far.

This is all for this post.

- I would be happy for comments. (- almost completely absent on this blog)

But I can’t see any way in which what I say could possibly be either rejected or declined.

- Common sense wins the lot.

                                                                                    (Written initially on a “Word”, and modified and completed on the blog later. (- 28.2.16) + Note: - (- 1.5.2021) Being a native Hebrew Speaker I was familiar with the term “natural selection” in Hebrew rather than English, - having translated it (back) to English as “natural choice”. Only today I found out the correct term in English is “natural selection”. So wherever it says [above] “natural choice” you should read “natural selection”. I might sometime correct this in the post itself but for now I guess it is understood anyway. So far.)