Intelligent Design Will Continue To Be On The Upswing/ The Whale Is A Fearsome Floating Foetus.

Graeme Birds theory of the whale says that the whale is a gigantic floating foetus.  I want to state that up front for google reasons so that it may be recognised as my original conception.   But usually I find that others have thought about these things well before myself.

The main reasons that intelligent design will continue to be on the upswing are 1.  The idiocy, dogmatism, and tunnel vision of the neo-Darwinists. 2. The sophistication and good humour of maybe half a dozen intelligent design advocates.   If you favour straight evolution it is to these guys you want to go to, to get good ideas, to help flesh out your concept of evolution …..

From Elsewhere:

“We may be able to make up part of the huge gap in our explanation of evolution by getting our cosmology right. This idea that we’ve only been around for shy of 14 billion years. And the concept that evolution is a one planet phenomenon is pretty stupid.

Moons grow to planets grow to stars grow to bigger stars. At any point of this process the large oblate spheroid can blow up, much of the material will be recycled, and a great deal of cellular complexity can be maintained in this process. Forget anything that Einstein said; he was completely full of shit. So what I am saying is once we get the cosmology right ….. well we cannot really answer Professor Behe’s objections. But still we can make up some of the gap perhaps. The mainstream is just so fraudulent. But they ought to make a choice.

Aether Changes Everything And Opens Up Both Theological, And Atheistic Possibilities.

If they want to hold onto some sort of Darwinist outlook they have to get rid of this abuse-based idea that they will make the aether an outlaw. No aether they reckon. Even though the next minute they will give you the wave-length of the colour purple. No aether they say but light has a measurable wave-length they will tell you in their next breath.

I Know Its Only Science

But I Like It

Such stupidity. That level of stupidity can only be reversed with punitive public service sackings. The acknowledgement of the existence of aether opens up the possibility for intelligent consciousness somewhat independent of matter. It opens up the possibility of a planetary spirit or a God of sorts. But veering back towards atheism … the existence of aether also opens up the possibility for a greater storage of information than could be possible, if we were relying on the existence of non-aetheric information alone. I am suggesting that aether can be retained within and around the cell and a much greater level of informational memory may be possible than what seems plausible under non-aetheric materialist ideology.

Scientific Cosmology, As Opposed To Cosmological Lies And Irrationality,  Also Helps Make Up Some Of The Gap In The Theory Of Evolution, That Professor Behe Has Helped Uncover. 

So aether honesty opens up more possibilities on both sides of this argument. The mainstream ALSO needs to rid themselves of the young-universe creation myth of the big bang. If they can get rid of these known lies maybe they can hold on to their Darwinian outlook.

But they should choose,  because the mainstream is just making ass-clowns of themselves. If I agreed with the mainstream cosmology of course I would have to agree with Behe in this matter. There is no getting away from what he is saying here. Why even upset yourself trying to contradict Behe on this matter? Why bother? Why confront yourself with that level of cognitive dissonance? I just go with the flow people. I am no Christian but I have a Christian attitude towards the universe. The Christian attitude is “Its Gods universe and I’ll be happy with whatever it is I find out there.” Thats the scientific attitude.”


Where am I going with this?  Every so often I run into someone who is doing a very good job of defending evolution.  And its never anyone that is being placed in front of us in the media.  Chris Hitchens was an intelligent fellow, but he was weak on science.  Harris is a moron.  Dawkins has turned rigid and blinkered in his dotage.  He’s no longer any kind of committed scientist.  PZ Myers is very low-grade.  You find the better defenders quite by accident.  Maybe you’d be able to run into them if you could catch people getting banned by mindless ideologue PZ Myers.

So as advertised to the public the theory is weak. And people who think about these things deeply will realise the superiority of the leading lights of the intelligent design crowd if they will give them a fair hearing.

Turnabout Is Fair Play.  The Immortal Keith Richards Had Sympathy For The Devil.

Its Okay To Have Sympathy For The Intelligent Design Theorists.  Who Are Whipping Our Sad Asses Right Now. 

In our weight division mutations are a move towards DEVOLUTION and not whiggish evolution.  It is said we pass on 100 more or so mutations every generation.  Mutational devolution is thus the default philosophical position, or should be, in evolutionary theory, just as entropy has become a default notion in physics.  Now entropy is WRONG in physics but we needed to find out WHY it is wrong.  I’ve gone into that on this blog and elsewhere.  But if devolution is not correct in human development, then we need to find out why.

Mutations in our weight division are broken genes.  They are like viruses in the old-fashioned microsoft software.  We can put off the implications of this a while longer by way of marrying outside our race (somehow I swing back to miscegenation despite myself) but that hasn’t solved the problem of how we might hope to avoid devolving into useless piles of sterile festering garbage, as would be natural, if the generational gift of broken genes is not somehow overmatched.

If something is replacing the broken genes with healthy ones, what could that something be? If something is increasing the information, as natural selection reduces that information ….. where might the pristine information be coming from?

I try to drive science on, not by standing on the shoulders of giants, but rather by pushing hard down on the heads of pygmies.  So lets look at the following exchange to see where I may be coming from here:

Boo the Cardinal is already a believer in evolution. If he studied for six years he would realise what a half-baked idea it is. Even if it may well be true. Its a theory that needs a serious update if it wants to not be discarded.


Remorse for what? He’s innocent dummy. Or didn’t you get that far in school?

Iain Rae

@GMBCATASTROPHE I forgive you for your ignorance of evolution by natural selection . 10 hail Mary’s from you each day for 6 years.


I’m not ignorant of evolution by natural selection you low IQ cunt. Natural selection reduces the available information. The pro-Evolutionary crowd ought to be winning the argument. But they are losing it because they are not looking to where the lost information is being replaced if it is.
And no its not through mutation …… which is a completely untenable idea, for organisms in our weight division. So stop being a stupid ignorant cunt. Because if you want to win that argument you are going to have to do better than “natural selection.” Any intelligent design devotee will blow you out of the water with that bullshit because mutations are always harmful in our weight division.
And they don’t constitute more information. These are broken genes. Mutations are devolution and not evolution in our weight division. So pro-Evolutionists ought to be looking for information gain between species …… from the microscopic to larger species …. If they wish to win this one.


So you see what I’m saying here?  The evolution crowd have been giving us a lot of triumphalist happy-talk about the theory being in good shape.  Its not in good shape at all.  At least its not in good shape if judged by listening to these dummies the media gets to defend it.

What we are looking for is the little critters absorbing the information of even smaller critters, and if so in “object oriented” form. Here I am making an analogy to object oriented programming in computer science.  We can do nothing with broken genes.  We must find ourselves an environment wherein mutation is so numerous in such fast-breeding small critters,  that real and useful information can actually be built up, and in object oriented form. And if this object oriented information can be absorbed into larger species …. then what facilitates this permeability, should it happen at all?

Where Did The Whale Get The Information From In Just 9 Million Years?

So for example we have the idea that the whale evolved from a small four-legged animal over the space of 9 million or so years.   There is counter-evidence to this.  And some may say the evidence is not that solid. Still it seems to be pretty good to me, and so I’ll take it at face value tentatively.  The counter-evidence isn’t that powerfully strong.  Its to do with finding an intact whale that dates to an earlier date then the evolving in-between species.

Now the first thing we might say about the whale evolution story …  is that this progression is a form of evolution I call “New Niche Evolution”  … When an animal in one niche goes into a completely different niche (in this case probably to do with evading a predator) evolutionary pressure, pushing the animal in one direction is pervasive.  Plus an animal that retreats by running into the rivers ….. It achieves the partial but not total isolation necessary to push its gene pool one way.  To push the adaptations of the species in one direction only.  You MUST have the condition of partial but not total isolation to achieve this effect.  This effect is equivalent to a longstanding intelligent breeding program.

(((((This is what some theorists think allowed us to evolve.  Firstly we had the new niche evolution of coming down from the trees, where the trees, the river and the ocean met.  This is my version of the aquatic ape theory.   Then we had the new-niche evolution of repeated glacial periods.  Many Christian theorists in this space say that there is no such thing as macro-evolution.   I don’t go that far.  All I say is that in big animals macro-evolution is fucking hard.  Its not fucking easy.  For the big animals there is only new-niche evolution and rolling holocaust evolution and they both involve partial but not total separation.   I am constantly stunned by the glib assurance that Darwinists have in the reality and indeed the ease of evolution in larger mammals.  But the reality is that evolution is anything but natural for the larger organisms.)))))

But heretofore, in the story of the whale being evolved over 9 million years …. We don’t have the knowledge on tap,  as to whether the whale gained or lost genetic information. We feel surely that it must have gained information.  But where from?  In that weight division broken genes cannot be helpful.  Broken genes are also lost information. We carry more genes than we really need;  so was the proto-whale tapping into its extra gene pool only?

Directed Neotony A Huge Part Of Whale Evolution/ Gigantic Foetus Of A Four-Legged Animal.

Surely neotony was a huge part of this whale evolution story.  Losing the adults hair, increasing the time growing, exaggerated brain development, all this kind of thing.  That whale in someways is a gigantic unborn baby terrestrial.   So directed neotony had to be a big part of this story.

But what about new information?  Was it all old information used in different ways? Believe me this mutation business is complete bullshit and untenable. We can say conclusively that whale evolution had nothing to do with mutation.  Or at least only a little bit and only at first maybe ………

Since we don’t look to mutation and broken genes to help evolution in bigger animals, we may have to look at pulling “object oriented information” out of the plankton.  Plankton gives the information to the gut biome, and perhaps there are some stressful circumstances which may allow some chunks of information to be incorporated into the larger organism.

There has to be something that adds to the information that natural selection, and ambient mutational damage,  is taking away.  Now come on people lets be serious about this.  There has to be that replacement information.   Just as there must be pristine energy in the wider universe.  Or there would be no energy at all and we would by now have all devolved to sludge.

Later I will suggest where the ultimate source of genetic information may be coming from, if its not coming from intelligent design; An idea that ought not be ruled out by any means.  Here I am talking about a better arena than the surface of the earth for ultimate development of new genetic information.


Why am I doing this?  I really have no stake in this rumble.  I have no fellow feeling for my atheist colleagues? My view of physics opens up the possibility of intelligent design even without a supreme being? So why would I try and bridge the gap that has now opened up in favour of the intelligence design advocates?

I know its only science …… But I like it. 


Sympathy For Intelligent Design ………. New Information Could Be Coming From The Aether And From Intelligent Consciousness Within.

How did we come up with matter in the first place?

The electrons, neutrons and protons didn’t just appear out of nowhere.  In my theory first we had flux, then we had aether, then we had matter.  Matter is an offshoot of aether.  We know that the aether/electric/matter Nexus has produced consciousness.  But what is there to say that conscious intelligence or pockets thereof did not precede the development of matter?  And if we are conscious beings, and our consciousness is primarily to do with matter, but also to do with aether and electricity …. Then what is to say that we couldn’t have consciousness that was more aether-biased?

Now what I don’t think we can have is a universe-wide supreme consciousness. Since clear thinking would take such a huge being long periods of time. There needs to be some level of compaction to have real-time thought.  The great theorist Nassim Taleb says that the paradox of the trinity is easily understood by Christians, though to all others its a straight contradiction.  Taleb says that God being also Jesus allows God to have “skin in the game.”  Skin in the game is a concept that the philosopher has written thousands of words about.

Thats fantastic theology.  But any real God would have to reduce in size and scope from a solar system sized being, down to having a more constrained consciousness, just in order to function in something approaching real-time.   And I mean this even when you take superluminal speeds into account.   Because these speeds aren’t infinite.  I think that entanglement has only been measured up to about 17 kilometres last I checked and these people cannot be trusted anyway.

Anyway we could easily have pockets of aetheric-matter based consciousness since its aether that has had longer to evolve.  This is more a justification of animism than anything else.  I’m not opening the door to any fantasy that any primitive fellow might ever have had,  anytime.  But when you see very good evidence the likes of which Michael Behe brought to light in 1996, that does justify opening the door to intelligent design.  Because I’m not deluding myself that I’ve grasped back the lead Behe has gained on us, just in this one article.

Thats a lead that will probably take a century to pull back.  Most of modern cosmology has to be ditched in order to do so.


28 thoughts on “Intelligent Design Will Continue To Be On The Upswing/ The Whale Is A Fearsome Floating Foetus.

  1. Do you know WHO Glenn was before he died and was born again? He would have a great deal to answer for, since there is no way to confirm if his former wife was murdered or not as a result of his identity change.


  2. I was wondering how they managed to get John Howard under their control. But you do a deal with these people to carry out a small amount of wrong-doing. Next thing they have you wrapped up in really horrific wrong-doing.


  3. Here is the sort of argumentation that gets you banned from PZ Myers blogs. He will call you a “concern blogger” and he won’t allow any “concern blogging” where he is:

    Boo Radley

    ​@GMBCATASTROPHE you’re funny. the theory of evolution is more reliable and has more supporting evidence than the theory of gravity. the theory of evolution is conclusive in saying we didn’t evolve from neanderthals. it should be fact by now, not theory.


    Well maybe. But the people who we see supporting this theory are doing such a bad job of defending it that they now have lost the momentum. Because they have decided to stick dogmatically to broken genes (mutations) and natural selection (reducing information). But its interesting that you brought up gravity. THERE IS NO MAINSTREAM EXPLANATION OF GRAVITY. Did you know that?

    Newton doesn’t have a theory of what causes gravity and the Jew was just a fraudulent charlatan who came up with a lot of idiocy. The oligarchy does not allow us a causal theory of gravity. So you see your heroes have feet of clay. There is a force of gravity but the Jew doesn’t even allow us to acknowledge gravity as a force. He says its space bending. This is mindless idiocy and if you believe it, you are taking an even worse faith-based approach to it than you are with evolution.

    Every so often I come across someone who is doing a great job explaining what may be going on with evolution. But its not any of the morons we see on the television. And anyone continuing with the mutations and natural selection version of big animal evolution has lost the plot.


  4. So lets review the ideas we have gone over Boo, just to show how this condemnation of Pell is part of a suite of faith-based ideas that people have gone along with.

    1. The theory of evolution isn’t faith-based. But popular explanations of it are. Damaged software is no basis for software development. Quality cannot be inspected into a manufactured product. It must be designed in. So the pseudo-design thesis of evolution has to be updated. At least as popularly expressed. There needs to be a lot more directed neotony talked about and its likely we are picking up “object oriented” information from microscopic animals.

    2. There is no rational theory of gravity permitted in the mainstream. Belief in Einsteins idiocy is purely faith-based. There is a moratorium on public research of gravity. Its being treated as if it were a state secret. Which it is. Anti-gravity research was taken covert in 1956.

    3. You and Iain here are faith-based goose-steppers if you believe the universe is less than 14 billion years old. Which you do. No evidence ever emerged for such a thing. It was merely the misuse of a proxy (ie red shift). This is a young-universe creation myth. The most irrational creation myth ever, not excluding those which emphasise tortoises.

    4. You think that Pell is guilty. When this is simply not possible. Not only did he not do what the accuser claims he did …. he could not have done so. Clearly the accuser has transmuted his abuse to the wrong person and venue. The whole incident may well be some sort of setup. Since there was never any basis for the police to go forward with this, nor for the jury to convict.

    So we see all this faith-based thinking going on. Even in a theory that ought to be winning we see the whole territory abandoned in favour of the faith-based approach.


  5. Dude told Pell to get a remote starter on his car. Being as he was working through financial corruption in the vatican. He’s calling the conviction of Pell a show-trial.

    Completely correct of course.


  6. Modern theory tells us that our own cells resulted from the joining of two different species some hundreds of millions of years ago. The idea is that our mitochondria is the descendant of a bacteria that our cells have incorporated within them. Somehow we’ve stripped down the genes of these mitochondria so now they have pretty much just the one function of water and energy production.

    So here we are picking up extra genetic information ACROSS SPECIES. Mutation as the way forward, for large animals on the surface of the earth….. This is a foolish, idiotic, and wrong doctrine. But on the other hand in another environment, with microscopic organisms, it may be the case that new genetic information can be produced. I am not pretending here that I’m going to solve the problem of irreducible complexity anytime soon. Lets be realistic about this. So why aren’t the evolution advocates talking about cross-species fertilisation that increases genetic complexity? Why aren’t we suggesting that the bigger organisms can be picking up extra information from the microscopic ones? Because it would require the Darwinists to be humble and advocate more research. They would have to quit this idea that “the science is settled” …. You know the Al Gore bullshit.

    My point is not to take sides here. I am what PZ Myers is calling a “concern blogger” The pro-Darwin camp has made such a fuck-up of their case that they are making themselves out to be redundant. Our Muslim brothers aren’t as stupid as the media makes them out to be. They will get wind of the fact that the evolutionary advocates are now making ass-clowns of themselves ……………. I am a realist. So I am happy with all our theological brothers other than the Jews. But it would be better if the field were a competitive one. What do you think? Would you not want our agnostic veering to atheist scientists to have their head above water? Rather than be acting like the desperate doctrinaire ass-clowns they have become? Do you want any Muslim to be able to refute any evolutionist? Because thats the situation we are drifting towards. And its not the fault of the intelligent design crowd. Their leading lights are the ones driving progress right now.

    Here we have Charles Thaxton. Poor bugger lost a leg at some stage. As a chemist he and his colleagues found out that this idea of all these proto-gene proteins, being formed on the surface of the early earth …. They found that this couldn’t be done. That this idea was untenable. To form the proteins you need a very much reduced (electron rich) environment. It needs to be an ultra-violet free zone. You need lots of methane and lots of hydrogen. You need an absence of oxygen. A little CO2 or a little water vapour is fine. But no free oxygen. And you need a soup of quite specific gasses and liquids, since a lot of contamination from normal early earth constituents would just lead to a lot of goo. Not all materials available would sit well together. So supposing you are making a multi-vitamin. Iodine isn’t going to sit well with all the others and it will ruin the multi-vitamin, even though we really want a lot of iodine. So likewise in the early earth, most of what will really be available will cock up the experiment.

    In any case the doctrine of protein-building on the surface of the early earth is completely dead in the water. A total failure. So what does the pro-Evolution people do? What should they do? FIND A NEW FUCKING VENUE OF COURSE. But they are useless. They are not humble enough for science. Science requires a bit of fucking humility and knowing when you’ve been beaten.

    The new venue we are looking for is deep inside moons or planets that have almost no atmosphere, and that have only just began the process of new matter creation.


  7. Just in case you haven’t yet grasped the essence of the problem with Darwinism advocacy …… From Elsewhere:

    Zanta sez

    “You need to find a mechanism for increasing complexity.”

    it has shown to be able to make organism more complex times and times again…
    argument of ignorance..

    GMB sez:

    Lets go again Zanta, because your reasoning is circular, just like a fundamentalist Christians. I am what the idiot PZ Myers calls a “concern blogger” That is to say I am more sympathetic to atheism, but I’m concerned that these very intelligent and nice men, at the very top of intelligent design movement (Wells, Behe, Meyer) are the only people doing good work in this space right now. Birds fly well if both wings are working, and its not a good thing if the atheist side of the argument has gone stupid and doctrinaire.

    Now lets look at this from a linguistic analysis point of view. Evolution means THINGS CHANGE. And evolution might mean also THINGS GET MORE COMPLEX. So your argument is empty because you are claiming that organisms are getting more complex ….. which is kind of an okay claim. Though the monkey has 12% more genetic information than we do. But okay your claim is okay. But your claim does not show WHY things get more complex if indeed they do. It might be that things used to get more complex and now they are getting less complex. But nonetheless lets put that aside and grant you that things are getting more complex.

    But if you define evolution as things getting more complex …. thats no causal mechanism for things getting more complex. Do you follow?

    So in fact you’ve got nothing. This is the problem. Mutation .. ie broken genes, coupled with natural selection ……. that makes things LESS COMPLEX …. I hope I am not going to fast for you. So the atheist wing of this argument needs to find real and new sources of increasing complexity. Since their first attempt at this argument is a failure.


  8. I think I’ll try and exploit the incredible Neal Adams in my quest to find evidence for the best location for the development of proto-genetic proteins, as well as sub-cellular and single-cellular informational complexity.

    Neal built on the work of Australian scientists but he has to be considered one of the very great 21st century scientists in his own right, even though his main gig is as a comic-book artist. So I’ll go and try and mine his brain for ideas.

    He was thinking about this stuff two decades or more before me. He brought a lot of this gear to my attention. Still he has been gypped of his spot in the scientific sunlight. So his tendency will be to CLAIM that he always knew what I’m suggesting here. He’s never going to actually allow it might have been me tipping him off.

    But my exploitation strategy is a good one. Because if this is a new tip-off coming from me, and should he wish to incorporate it as his original idea … It will behoove him to flood me with information, so as to offer me pseudo-proof that my idea is really his idea.

    And thats what I want. I’d like to get a bit of credit now and then. But the main thing is to drive these things forward. Just like I was trying to do 2005-2008 with the global warming racket.


  9. 2TLP4ME Sez

    So you can create an experiment to show matter coming from nowhere?

    GMB Sez:

    Well you can see from Neals research that a planet has to be almost the size of Europa or our Moon in order to create the inner void that can make new matter creation (from pair production) possible.

    ((((((((Yes obviously you caught me extrapolating a great deal here))))))))

    So why create a new pluto-sized experiment when we have Pluto, Europa, the Moon and so forth? We know from mainstream science that with a vacuum and gamma light we have pair production right? You with me?

    But if to create a lab experiment and incorporate the pair production into full-blown new matter creation …… if we need a pluto sized planet to make that work …. to get that inner void …. Well its probably going to be too expensive to set up a new planet to make that work.

    (((((Sometimes I use understatement for effect))))))))

    Its probably better just to get some satellites up there ….. for all the spherical objects at or near that threshold ….. And just make these observations.


  10. GMB sez:

    Finding a big problem at the moment Neal. In all areas the Darwinist wing of the evolution debate has been trounced. And I feel, with all humility, that its mostly ….. not totally, actually maybe not mostly … but its a problem that has come about because the cosmology is completely wrong.

    So for example its been established by the intelligent design crowd ( excellent scientists by the way) that growing complexity of proteins on the surface of the ancient earth is untenable.

    But the other side to the argument hasn’t responded in a competitive fashion. They should have shifted the venue. They ought to have shifted the venue of the growing complexity of proteins to the inner life of rocky moons where the new matter creation process has only just begun.

    So these nice men, and terrific scientists, at the very top of the intelligent design movement (Behe, Wells, Meyer, Thaxton et al) don’t have anyone serious to debate with. Because you have bullshit Darwinists arguing from Bullshit cosmology.

    I suppose as usual these problems have come to your attention maybe two decades before they hit my windscreen. I fancy myself a creative fellow. But I’m always beaten to the punch on these matters.

    Still I’d like your thoughts?


  11. I have a very great deal more to say about this in my own right though. I want to make the analogy with my version of fusion, and my version of hydro-carbon building in comets. So already I’m pretty sure of my grounding and I think I would know where to point serious undergraduate students.


  12. Here we have this fellow. Solid intellectual. Serious scientist. I believe he would be kicked off the PZ Myers blog for being a “Concern Blogger” That is someone who shows clearly that the PZ Myers view is full of shit, but still insists that he is very sympathetic to an atheist view of the situation.


  13. Suppose that the ideology had been that it was absorption of extra genes by way of gut microbiome …. modified by natural selection. Well that might be bullshit, but at least it would make possible INCREASING complexity.

    But by coupling mutation with natural selection WITHIN THE ONE SPECIES BUT NOT ACROSS SPECIES then Darwin has set himself up for eventual refutation. Thats where we are right now.


  14. The Jews have all these horrible little people hounding this fine young lady. It doesn’t take much to disrupt them. But its not something I can do on my own and in fact I really have to focus on my own act. But here is how you go about stomping on the heads of these Orcs:

    GMB Sez:

    Jews have been running your budgets into the ground for years. The first thing you have to do to get your budgets in order is to bring all the American soldiers back from the Jew wars. Then you have to close down dozens of government departments. Cutting off school lunches before you raise income tax thresh-holds is not particularly sound budgeting. The girl is practicing a bit of Jew-Jitsu so good on her. Get your act together you horrid creatures. Because all this demonising of this fine young woman is exposing you for the Orcs you truly are.


  15. Congratulations for the New Zealand police. Pretty gutsy move ramming the gunmans car and arresting him alive. They are saying he’s an Australian terrorist. There are four people arrested which is encouraging. Lets hope we find which government put them up to this.

    Strangely enough it looks all real so far. Which is a shame. I would much prefer fake victims. But no its a terrible horror-show.


  16. Here’s a video that helps bring it home what a weak and limited method of change Darwins mutation-with-natural-selection is. Inter-species genetic contributions coupled with natural selection might be a substitute. But who is doing the work on this possibility? Certainly the Darwinists aren’t talking about this sort of thing.


  17. There are people doing good work. Looks to be baby steps so far. Its not Darwinian ideologues doing the work. Anyone saying anything sensible about these things seems to be talking about volcanic rock pools. That sounds sort of on the right track.


  18. Its very much like the fakery with fusion. The official secrets version of fusion tells us that fusion is really difficult. It requires a lot of thermal heat and pressure. The opposite of the truth. Fusion is easy and effortless. Hi heat will inhibit fusion, just like a mob attack will make it harder for you to change the tires on your car. Fusion would be better cool and with moderate pressure. But what fusion does requires is ELECTRICAL PRESSURE. Fusion has to take place where there is a great deal of built up charge as in some sort of gigantic capacitor. Thats never going to be how things are on the surface of the earth, with clouds in the sky, but above the clouds we have high capacitance or charge buildup between the ionosphere and that region. Thats why we get alterations to the nucleus of Nitrogen atoms, and we wind up with Carbon 14.

    Essentially the same lecture as the one prior. But here the fellow gives the idea of abiogenisis, on earths surface, the contempt it probably deserves.

    Atheists have fallen so far behind on this matter. But maybe we can get some traction so long as we change the venue.

    We cannot expect to find protein and virus formation above the clouds because the constituents aren’t really there in the right form. Plus if such a process ever got going the molecules would either fall to ground or be wiped out by UV light come the morning. So we need to find other venues for both fusion and proto- gene-building. Because the idea of it going on, on earths early surface. Thats idea is a dead horse and there is no reason to beat a dead horse.


  19. “Tardigrade genomes vary in size, from about 75 to 800 megabase pairs of DNA.[81] Hypsibius dujardini has a compact genome of 100 megabase pairs[82] and a generation time of about two weeks; it can be cultured indefinitely and cryopreserved.[83]”

    This cute little fellow may have the capacity to survive an exploding moon or planet. Allowing the huge rock component to be absorbed into another moon or planet, thus preserving some of the genetic inheritance going back many thousands of trillions of years. If we think like this maybe we can get somewhere. Fake Jew (oligarchical really) physics and cosmology is getting in the way of developments in all areas. We haven’t in anyway overcome the problem of irreducible complexity. But at least we have given ourselves a bit of breathing space.


  20. They appear on family guy as well.

    These guys are a pioneer species and in every other way our best candidates for preservation of the genetic inheritance when planets blow up. Leaving some gigantic rocks in place. Here I’m talking about rocks considerably larger than (lets say) Phobos.

    Look at the characteristics? Already we have said they can pack a great deal of genetic information into a small space.

    From Wikipedia:

    Tardigrades are able to survive in extreme environments that would kill almost any other animal. Extremes at which tardigrades can survive include those of:

    Temperature – tardigrades can survive:
    A few minutes at 151 °C (304 °F)[53]
    30 years at −20 °C (−4 °F)[54]
    A few days at −200 °C (−328 °F; 73 K)[53]
    A few minutes at −272 °C (−458 °F; 1 K)[55]

    Pressure – they can withstand the extremely low pressure of a vacuum and also very high pressures, more than 1,200 times atmospheric pressure. Tardigrades can survive the vacuum of open space and solar radiation combined for at least 10 days.[56] Some species can also withstand pressure of 6,000 atmospheres, which is nearly six times the pressure of water in the deepest ocean trench, the Mariana Trench.[25]

    Dehydration – the longest that living tardigrades have been shown to survive in a dry state is nearly 10 years,[41][42] although there is one report of leg movement, not generally considered “survival”,[57] in a 120-year-old specimen from dried moss.[58] When exposed to extremely low temperatures, their body composition goes from 85% water to only 3%. As water expands upon freezing, dehydration ensures the tardigrades do not get ripped apart by the freezing ice.[59]

    Radiation – tardigrades can withstand 1,000 times more radiation than other animals,[60] median lethal doses of 5,000 Gy (of gamma rays) and 6,200 Gy (of heavy ions) in hydrated animals (5 to 10 Gy could be fatal to a human).[61] The only explanation found in earlier experiments for this ability was that their lowered water state provides fewer reactants for ionizing radiation.[61] However, subsequent research found that tardigrades, when hydrated, still remain highly resistant to shortwave UV radiation in comparison to other animals, and that one factor for this is their ability to efficiently repair damage to their DNA resulting from that exposure.[62]

    Irradiation of tardigrade eggs collected directly from a natural substrate (moss) showed a clear dose-related response, with a steep decline in hatchability at doses up to 4 kGy, above which no eggs hatched.[63] The eggs were more tolerant to radiation late in development. No eggs irradiated at the early developmental stage hatched, and only one egg at middle stage hatched, while eggs irradiated in the late stage hatched at a rate indistinguishable from controls.[63]

    Environmental toxins – tardigrades are reported to undergo chemobiosis, a cryptobiotic response to high levels of environmental toxins. However, as of 2001, these laboratory results have yet to be verified.[57][58]

    Outer space – tardigrades are the first known animal to survive in outer space. In September 2007, dehydrated tardigrades were taken into low Earth orbit on the FOTON-M3 mission carrying the BIOPAN astrobiology payload. For 10 days, groups of tardigrades were exposed to the hard vacuum of outer space, or vacuum and solar UV radiation.[3][64][65] After being rehydrated back on Earth, over 68% of the subjects protected from high-energy UV radiation revived within 30 minutes following rehydration, but subsequent mortality was high; many of these produced viable embryos.[56][66] In contrast, hydrated samples exposed to the combined effect of vacuum and full solar UV radiation had significantly reduced survival, with only three subjects of Milnesium tardigradum surviving.

    [56] In May 2011, Italian scientists sent tardigrades on board the International Space Station along with extremophiles on STS-134, the final flight of Space Shuttle Endeavour.[67][68][69] Their conclusion was that microgravity and cosmic radiation “did not significantly affect survival of tardigrades in flight, confirming that tardigrades represent a useful animal for space research.”[70] In November 2011, they were among the organisms to be sent by the U.S.-based Planetary Society on the Russian Fobos-Grunt mission’s Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment to Phobos; however, the launch failed. Tardigrades are one of the few groups to have survived Earth’s five mass extinctions.[71]


  21. Brioche buns are potentially the best bread. The bad guys are still putting gluten in them. Sometimes canola oil but since there is a lot of butter in them they ought not need much canola even when they use it. I mention this because its the important stuff.


  22. Transposition. We need something like that BETWEEN species. More likely between gut biome and larger mammals. Maybe we don’t have it but we ought to be looking for it.

    Why do we need it? Because mutation-with-natural-selection is like a toddlers dead father. Its gone and its never coming back.


  23. Time to take a few Evolution advocates and lead them by the nose. I call this process. Taking it to the street.

    GMB Sez:

    Are we still insisting that the abiogenesis must have happened on the surface of the early earth? Or have we woken up to the reality that we need a venue change yet?

    James Downard sez

    I don’t recall if I mentioned it in this video specifically, but I have in others noted that the trend in the research is to focus on ocean vents etc, not necessarily very deep, but outside any surface worry about unfiltered UV radiation, but close enough to draw on the organics brought to earth in comets and asteroids.

    GMB sez

    It has to be a “reducing environment” so we might want to go deeper and not be restricted by either a one planet operation or some young universe creation myth like the big bang. You guys are going to get slapped around if you keep toeing the line on crap oligarchy directed cosmology and physics.

    The assumption is all these reducing gasses. And you have a disconnect between all these reducing gasses and what people think they know about the early surface of the earth. But if you might find out that deep on a moon, and without much of an atmosphere, you can have an electrically reduced environment, then you don’t need to be so dependent on a “just so” grouping of gasses.

    James Downard sez

    @GMBCATASTROPHE The origin of the universe in the Big Bang is separate from the origin of life on earth, and it is not a myth but the only model that accounts for the data. “You guys”? by which you mean the actual scientists? Perhaps you should offer some sources on what you think accounts for the first life. And also when you think that was.

    James Downard sez

    @GMBCATASTROPHE Sources please on what you think you’re talking about, G

    GMB sez:

    No the Big Bang in no way accounts for the data. You guys in chemistry, organic chemistry and micro-biology, you are proper scientists and yet you allow yourselves to get pushed around by top-down bullshitartistry. The Big bang is such bad science it has to be assumed to be a psychological operation. It takes one proxy and misuses it. It takes a single proxy and uses it to replace three unknown data-sets. Thats science fraud.

    In all the rest of science you need at least three proxies to find one unknown dataset. Even if one of these is just a tie-breaker. You are always going to be lacking in credibility if you insist on bad cosmology, leaving you with a one-planet young universe view of evolution.

    James Downard sez

    @GMBCATASTROPHE Sorry, your assertion counts diddly, G. Please offer sources on this.

    GMB sez:

    Come on man. You know I don’t need sources since you know what I’m saying is true. The Big Bang is an appeal to pure magic. Really obvious Voodoo. The most irrational creation myth, not excluding those involving tortoises.

    Now another couple of items that will help you get your thinking together here. The conservation of matter is not merely wrong its a logical contradiction. If matter were conserved there would be no matter ever. There is no getting around the logic of that.

    Likewise the conservation of energy is not merely wrong. It cannot be true since otherwise there would be no energy. This reality cannot be overcome.

    Plus there is no such thing as a wave where nothing is waving hence aether theory is appropriate for physics.

    Once we get that far this evolution business isn’t so difficult after all.

    GMB sez:

    No no. Attempt to be a scientist. Take every assertion I’ve made here. I’m right, if you disagree with me on even any of these basic logical ideas you are wrong. The people who run physics and cosmology have decided that they are above and beyond logic. Once you deep-six their logical contradictions and ponder the matter for awhile you wind up with a cosmology where evolution is much more credible. And you don’t need to be in denial of what is necessary to get the development of proteins and so forth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s