Faced with darwinism, Monod’s atomism and Jacob’s bricolage, it is essential to affirm the Goethean dignity of form, within the immense architecture of a universe “given all together”, with all its laws.
We firmly believe that biological evolution – as it is progressively elaborated by Darwinism – is nothing more than a myth. Biology has no proof of the spontaneous origin of life, indeed it has shown its impossibility. There is no gradation of life from the elementary to the complex, from the bacterium to the butterfly, for man the biochemical and genetic complexity is substantially the same.
Basic biological mechanisms and functions are the same everywhere, in the invisible as in the gigantic.
Darwinism, with all its variants held up by academics as corrections of an increasingly fallacious approach, represents the scientific version of the pre-existing “social Darwinism” (in Hobbes and Malthus). As this last form of thought is false, the more its scientific declination cannot tell us any truth.
From the first appearance of fossils to today, the diversity and richness of living forms have not increased. New groups have replaced the older ones, but those intermediate forms that evolutionists have desperately sought do not exist. There are no ascendants traceable in the different forms of life: these in fact appear suddenly.
Darwin has peacefully passed and the obstinacy with which one tries to keep him alive and even to declare his relevance is unjustified and suspicious. Evidently, Darwin was the son or father of too many myths and ideologies to be put aside: economism, domination over nature, progressive optimism, the death of God.
Thus we can easily see how much, for this concatenation of theses and theories, their father’s declaration is valid:
There must be open struggle between all men; and the best ones should not be prevented by laws and customs from succeeding and raising the greatest number of children. In some time to come, not very far away if measured over the centuries, it is almost certain that the more civilized human races will exterminate and replace the savage ones all over the world.
Charles Darwin
Dear Darwinism, let’s start with the basics: you still have a problem called differentiation
In all the next articles we will try to unravel the plots of this dangerous framework, and how important it was in influencing the history of the following century.
Differentiation does not lend itself to the methods of genetic analysis: mutation, recombination, selection. This first finding has a great significance since it indicates that the structures that operate the differentiation are not those that the geneticist investigates (chromosomes, genes, DNA). Since differentiation is the basis of diversification between species, this again indicates that this is a phenomenon extraneous to properly genetic processes.
Within the texts of genetics, a portion is often set aside as “cytoplasmic (or extrachromosomal) inheritance”, which includes the phenomena of “maternal” inheritance, “symbiotic or parasitic” inheritance and everything that can be cataloged (and “archiving”, in fact) as a non-Mendelian inheritance. It is a minor chapter, which some genetics texts omit, while other evolutionary genetics texts regularly ignore. We think that at least a good part of the phenomena that produce embryological differentiation and diversification between groups are placed in this chapter. The main part is obviously found in the embryology texts.
The closer one gets to the molecular level in the study of living organisms, the more similar they appear and the less important the morphological differences become between, for example, a clam and a horse. The same type of chemical mechanism can serve the most diverse organisms … The protein structure is more distant from selective pressures and closer to the origin of genetic DNA mutations than are macroscopic anatomical characters and hereditary behavior patterns
R.E. Dickerson comments on the substantial constancy of cytochrome C in living beings and its non-adaptive differentiation
This means that genetic mutations appear increasingly inaccessible or indifferent to selection. A structure reached by trial and error is truly inconceivable and in any case completely outside the mechanisms that molecular biology has been able to deduce from the study of the “comparative anatomy” of proteins. As far as we have been able to ascertain it can however be concluded that the genetic divergence between species that is observable at the molecular level is nonselective., Or, as the proponents of the theory of “neutrality” call it, non-Darwinian.