Evolution Is Lethal Antiscience
© Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.* Peer reviewed paper published in Creation Research Society Quarterly 38: 151-158, 2001.[*Professor Emeritus, California State University, Long Beach; Adjunct Professor of Physiology, Graduate School, Institute for Creation Research, 10946 Woodside Avenue N., Santee, CA 92071]
The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, life spontaneously generated from nonlife. The superstructure placed upon that foundation is monogenesis, myriad spontaneously generated structures to produce every kind of simple life form then by countless spontaneous generations every kind of complex life form. The other “definitions” of evolution are change over time, common descent and natural selection. Laboratory abiogenesis has failed consistently and dredging the bottoms of the oceans yielded the inert sulfate of lime, not the fraudulent “monera.” The simulated abiogenesis of the proteins to mock-up the simplest original cell is more than a zillion (>104,000,0000, 1 followed by more than 4,000,000 zeros) times more impossible than the mathematical definition of impossible. The probability of monogenesis was not attempted because myriad multiplications of impossible yield impossible to unimaginable extremes. The common textbook instructions, “life arose in the ancient seas” from “that original organic soup,” are teaching the innumerable miracles of the evolution religion and that violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of a state supported church. To meet the requirements of science and the Constitution, these lessons must be changed to “life was created,” as in “Henry Ford created the Ford automobile.”
“Change over time,” “definition one” of evolution, actually describes devolution to extinction, the exact opposite of evolution. “Common descent,” “definition two” of evolution, actually describes true-to-type devolution to extinction, again the exact opposite of evolution. A sample engineering analogue, as well as actual epidemiological data from human genetic disorders and fatal birth defects, identify “natural selection,” the alleged “primary mechanism” for evolution, as actually a mechanism for devolution to extinction, the exact opposite of evolution. Both “definitions” of evolution and evolution’s “primary mechanism” yield universal devolution to extinction. Additionally, evolution is the antithesis of science because it cloaks current permanent accelerating human and biosphere extinction in the garb of biologically advantageous progress. Evolution wantonly militates against countermeasures while myriad individuals and populations, including humans, are accelerated to the greatest mass extinction in history. Therefore, evolution is identified here as the wantonly lethal antiscience ruling the summit of criminality. As a first step for self defense against imminent permanent human and biosphere mass extinction, the evolution movement must be expunged worldwide.
Key words: evolution, creation, lethal, antiscience, abiogenesis, monogenesis, genetic disorders, extinction, summit criminality, state religion, fatal birth defects.
Evolution has ruled biology for more than a century. That is a remarkable achievement and the purpose of this paper is to illumine why evolution is so controversial and why it is considered here to be at the summit of criminality. The approach is to pursue the various definitions of evolution and to examine the evidence. As needed, principles from the sciences shall be brought to bear.
The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, a living cell allegedly springing to life from nonliving matter. This apparently is based on the “monera” fraud of Ernst Haeckel (Assmuth and Hull, 1915, pp. 74-76). The nonexistent monera were misrepresented as primitive missing-link single cells found in the slime at the bottom of oceans but in fact were inert precipitates of sulfate of lime (Rupke, 1971, pp. 169-183; Becker, 1999, pp. 14-18). To synthesize a monera, the Miller-Urey experiments failed remarkably and consistently (Yockey, 1992, pp. 231, 232, 234, 238 -241; Miller and Levine, 2000, p. 344). Furthermore, the simulated evolution of a small protein for a small cell yielded an improbability comparable to a successful perpetual motion machine (Yockey, 1992, p. 257). In spite of no evidence from nature or the laboratory or simulation, abiogenesis persists in current high school and university biology textbooks as “life arose in the ancient seas” from “that original organic soup” (Johnson, 1998, p. 195; Miller and Levine, 2000, pp. 344, 346). To the apparent impossibility of abiogenesis, evolution concatenates the apparent impossibilities of monogenesis, the parent cell spontaneously diversifying to form all other kinds of single-cell organisms, then these in turn spontaneously complicating to all multicellular life forms.
Another approach to evolution is by way of its meanings. Apparently, there are three. “Definition one” is change over time. It is stated that evolution of this type is a fact. “Definition two” is common descent. This is treated as though it were a fact. “Definition three” is natural selection, the primary mechanism for definitions one and two (American Scientific Affiliation, 1996, p. 3).
This study will be limited to an examination of abiogenesis, monogenesis, change over time, common descent and natural selection.
II. Data On Abiogenesis and Monogenesis
Let us begin by examining the foundation of evolution, abiogenesis. The necessary elements in nature are believed to have spontaneously joined together and spontaneously generated life in a cell. We incompletely know, but the cell would not know at all, that its metabolic functions of digestion, circulation, respiration, excretion, movement, repair, and reproduction would depend upon the spontaneously generated polysaccharides, lipids, amino acids, alpha helixes, polypeptide chains, assembled quaternary protein subunits, and nucleotides. At least all of these extremely complex subunits must spontaneously self-combine then further spontaneously combine into the still more complex functioning cellular structures, like the mazes of conduits containing automatically moving raw materials and finished products to and from peripheral assembly organelles, energy systems, long-chain proteins, and nucleic acids. In preparation for an electrical storm, for example, exactly the right mix of the spontaneously generated DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, cell membrane material with its millions of gate-controlled apertures, enzymes, and scores of other protein structures, each a complex machine in its own right, must be spontaneously and precisely positioned (Behe, 1996, pp. 262-268; Denton, 1986, p. 263). Then with every atom in the right place at the right time the first cell might be thunderbolted together and spring to life. Even these incomplete details are not mentioned in the biology textbooks and none of the above references are cited. No calculation of the probability of any of those events is given to the student to estimate whether or not what is being taught has the same or greater improbability of miracles, which would rule it out of science. Without evidence, the student is expected to believe on faith the dogma that a cell somehow sprang to life in the distant past “in the ancient seas” “that original organic soup” (Johnson, 1998, p.195; Miller and Levine, 2000, p. 346).
The objective determination of abiogenesis as science, or as miracles, may be approached by observing that many functions in a living cell are determined by the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the peculiar organic chemistry of biologically useful amino acids in viable proteins. When amino acids are synthesized in the laboratory, about half are left-handed and about half are right-handed. Yet, only the left-handed ones are biologically useful. Of the left-handed, there are 20 eligible amino acids for each of perhaps hundreds of positions in a viable protein, but almost always only one correct choice can meet the functional requirements. Almost always a peptide bond is required and any other will cause the protein to fail biologically. Sometimes with a correct primary structure, the correct secondary or tertiary or quaternary structures may not materialize because the solution conditions for the synthesis were not exact. Taking the complex biochemistry into account which yields the complex submicroscopic geometries biologically required, a search may be made for the probability of creating a protein by chance as specified by evolution. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times a trillion vigintillion. A trillion vigintillion has 75 zeros. In evolution’s terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. That is devastating for evolution because there would be no time to complete that single molecule, no time to evolve the scores of thousands of proteins required for one cell, no time to evolve all the other simple cells and no time to evolve all the complex organisms for a functioning biosphere. The author of this landmark monograph concluded, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability” (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257). That should settle the question but let us employ an extra measure of patient endurance and continue the search.
The evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, stated: Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein- based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one” (Dawkins, 1996, pp. 144, 146).
The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins’ own evolutionist criterion for the impossibility of evolution, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by more than 50 orders of magnitude not for a whole cell but for only one molecule of one small protein in that cell. Had Dawkins been influenced by the literature (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257), he would not have said, “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)” (Johnson, 1993, p.9). Dawkins by his own probability estimate, with more than 50 orders of magnitude to spare, has identified himself as a non believer in evolution and needs to ask whether he considers himself “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.” That surfeit of evidence, more than 50 orders of magnitude, should surely settle the case but let us continue the search.
According to Dembski and Borel, specified events of small probability do not occur. Dembski estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He used the Planck value of 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by ten million for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150, or more exactly 0.5 x 10150, for his Law of Small Probability to eliminate chance (Dembski, 1998, pp. 5, 62, 209, 210).
Currently, there does not seem to be a scientific criterion more generous to evolution than Dembski’s one chance in 0.5 x 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. To test against that criterion, we take one chance in 2.3 x 1075 for one protein (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257) and multiply by the 60,000 proteins required for the abiogenesis of a minimal cell (Denton, 1986, p. 263; Morowitz, 1966, pp. 446-459) and obtain one chance in more than 104,478,296 (Mastropaolo, 1999, p. iii). That exceeds Dembski’s most generous criterion for impossible by more than 104,478,146. Or if 0.5 x 10150 to 1 is the most generous probability science can provide to demarcate possibility from miracle, then with more than four million orders of magnitude to spare abiogenesis must be considered miraculous. To put abiogenesis in biology textbooks as evolutionists have done throughout the United States is to teach evolution religion as science and that violates the requirement of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a state religion (Constitution of the United States of America, 1787, Amendment I, see note).
With abiogenesis so unimaginably impossible, it is a waste of time to examine monogenesis which rests upon the abiogenesis foundation. With the innumerable spontaneous generations of abiogenesis so impossible, the additional countless spontaneous generations of monogenesis built upon that foundation are impossible to an even greater extreme. In order to document this problem of comprehending such extreme impossibilities, dimensioning the improbability of abiogenesis may be useful. Numbers like 104,478,296 are incomprehensively large. It is the number 1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros. There is no English word for it. There ought to be some way to give a sense of such a magnitude. For example, if a perpetual motion machine is probabilistically impossible and has a probability of 1075 to 1 against it (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257), then how many impossible perpetual motion machines would abiogenesis’ 104,478,296 to 1 against it represent? The answer is the impossibility of 104,478,221 perpetual motion machines, also a number too large to imagine. Let us persevere and consider the Blue Fairy that animated Pinocchio (Collodi, 1883, see note) as one chance in 10150, that is, she is impossible according to Dembski’s criterion for impossible. The abiogenesis of only one type of simple unassembled protein raw material to mock-up a minimal original cell is more impossible than 104,478,146 Blue Fairies. Again, this is too large a number to imagine. In passing, we may note that evolution is likely the greatest fairy tale ever told because every elementary particle, like an electron, in the entire cosmos could be occupied by a Blue Fairy playing Musical Chairs at the incredible tempo of 1045 changes per second for more than 20 billion years with more than 104,478,146 Blue Fairies patiently waiting a turn to play. Instead of biology, American students are being taught evolution’s peerless blend of championship science fiction with children’s fairy tales. But let us not give up. Let us consider a universe 100 billion light years in diameter, probably double the size of ours, and ask how many trips across that universe we could make if each probability unit was equal to the diameter of a hydrogen atom. With the hydrogen atoms side by side, the answer would be 104,478,259 trips, again too large for the imagination. Abiogenesis is so immensely improbable that it defies finding a reference to common experience or even a language equivalent to express it abstractly.
To give a language reference, let us define “zillion” as greater than 104,000,000 (1 followed by more than 4,000,000 zeros) and let us define “create” as Webster renders its first meaning, “to cause to come into existence; bring into being; make; originate; esp., to make or design (something requiring art, skill, invention, etc.).” We may quite properly say, “Henry Ford created the Ford automobile,” without attributing to Henry Ford any divine status. Now let us employ these definitions and properly conclude that the probability of evolution’s foundation, abiogenesis, and its superstructure, monogenesis, is more than a zillion to one against them and the probability of creation, without religious connotation, is more than a zillion to one in favor of it. Such probabilities remove every vestige of the vaguest doubt from any objective scientist. Let us close with the reminder that those probabilities are for only one type of simple unassembled protein to mock-up the simplest original cell and they represent gross underestimates. The improbabilities for a complete cell or for a complex life form of trillions of cells or for an ecosystem of millions of different interdependent complex life forms would require multiplications by myriad additional orders of magnitude. The evolutionist mind of Anaximander (611-549 B.C.) must be complimented for imagining abiogenesis and monogenesis (Durant, 1939, p. 138), concepts so improbable that human minds are incapable of comprehending the extent of their impossibility. Authors like Johnson (1998) and Miller and Levine (2000) would be well advised to discontinue violations of the Constitution by removing from their public school textbooks all mention of the countless incredible miracles, abiogenesis and monogenesis. They would bring their public school textbooks into compliance with the requirements of science and the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California if they substituted, “life was created.”
III. Data On the Three “Definitions” of Evolution
Let us now consider “definition one” of evolution, “change over time.” “Because such changes have been repeatedly observed, evolution of this type is a fact” (American Scientific Affiliation, 1996, p. 3). According to common observation, however, all individuals in the biosphere age and die. Once dead, the plants rot and the animals putrefy to simpler nonviable elements. Individually, life forms devolve. Types of life forms as populations also regress from viable to permanent extinction. That too is devolution, not evolution. The nonviable universe also devolves (Humphreys 1978). The first definition of evolution is antonymous to the trillions of consistent observations of billions of people over thousands of years. The exclusive fact is devolution.
“Definition two” for evolution is common descent. This “view that all (or most all) life forms, extant and extinct, are related by common ancestry: a theory about the history of life . . . the common sense observation that all offspring have parents, have led [sic] many scientists to treat the inference of common ancestry as though it were a fact” (American Scientific Affiliation, 1996, p. 3). According to common observation, however, individuals age and die as the same type of individual at birth. Individuals also reproduce true to type. Types of life forms as populations demonstrate variability in characteristics like size, weight, color, and speed of motion but always breed true to their type. For example, Shetland horses may weigh 300 pounds and Belgian horses may weigh a ton more than that. Horses may be described by a mean and a standard deviation for body weight or any other characteristic of horses. It is common knowledge that all variability in parents and offspring is within their type. No mare has ever given birth to a calf and no cow has ever born a foal. Life forms do not transmute to other types of life forms. Life forms as individuals and populations have been observed devolving to extinction but never evolving. The second definition of evolution is antonymous to the trillions of consistent observations of billions of people over thousands of years. Again, devolution is the exclusive fact.
“Definition three” of evolution is natural selection, “The theory (acting upon genetic variations, such as mutation) has been the primary mechanism for the biological changes described in definitions one and two” (American Scientific Affiliation, 1996, p. 3, emphasis in the original). As documented above, definitions one and two are definitions of devolution, not evolution. Also as documented above, the alternative definition of evolution, abiogenesis, is so impossible it strains the imagination and must be classified as countless miracles. The superstructure of innumerable spontaneous generations, monogenesis, is countless multiples more impossible than abiogenesis and also must be classified as countless additional miracles.
For the sake of discussion, let us consider whether or not genetic variations, such as mutation, may in any way mitigate those extreme impossibilities. Evolutionists would have us believe that mutations will yield new and better life forms that will result in many different kinds of plants and animals, i.e. diversification, and a progression to higher, more complex life forms. To clarify that logic, let us select one example from an almost infinite number of thought experiments. Let us take the circuit board out of an AM radio, put on a blindfold, then put a finger on the board. To simulate a mutation, if the finger lands on a connection, break that connection or if the finger lands where there is no connection, then make one. Reassemble the radio and test its range of stations for reception. Repeat the process. If the radio increases its range of stations or improves its reception, then we conclude that mutations cause improved structure and function. Or if it becomes an FM radio, then the modifications mimicking random mutations succeeded in producing diversification. If the radio becomes a TV, then the mutations succeeded in producing the equivalent of an advanced life form. Contrarily, if the radio progressively degrades to the point of no longer working, then the mutations produced extinction. Obviously, there is no chance of obtaining a TV because the AM radio has no monitor and none of the other special parts and circuits that a TV requires. And like living things, the AM radio could not spontaneously generate all those special TV parts because that would violate the laws of physics. Obviously, there is no chance of obtaining an FM radio because the design, frequency modulation, is significantly different from an AM, amplitude modulation, radio and cannot be constructed by introducing mutations into an AM design. Obviously, the radio will degrade to the point of not working at all and that is consistent with all human experience. In all human experience, there is no analogous model to suggest that natural selection and genetic variations, like mutations, will cause diversity or increased complexity. There is no such experience with life forms, either. All human experience suggests that all things, especially the complex, nonviable and viable alike, degrade toward permanent extinction. With its genetic variations and mutations, natural selection accelerates extinction, not evolution. Let us next consider human mutations.
Mendelian inheritance in man is “ an encyclopedia of human genes and the disorders and other traits with which they are associated. It has been in creation and updating for over 35 years and has been computerized for most of that time. In addition to the print edition (Figure 1), it has been distributed online (OMIM) since 1987 and by compact disc (MIM-CDTM) since late 1993.” (McKusick, 1998, Vol. 1, xiii - xviii)
Apparently, this database in the National Center for Biotechnology Information at Johns Hopkins University is the best in the world for the current catalog of human genes and genetic disorders.
|Figure 1. If evolution were true, these would
be the medically
reported genetic disorders from 1966 to 1999.
These data are actually reversed. Like these data, evolution
|Figure 2. McKusick: Mendelian
Inheritance in Man,
Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999. The number
of medically reported genetic disorders in 1966 was
1,487. The number reported by 1999 was 11,099. A
curve of best fit has an R2 of 0.995. These data are evidence
Medically reported human genetic disorders have been cataloged in the above reference since 1966. If evolution were true, then we should observe a decrease in genetic disorders over time according to the first definition of evolution, change over time, and the third definition, natural selection. That means that the graph would look like the hypothetical Figure 1. The data in Figure 1 are actually reversed. Like those data, evolution is false. The true data are plotted in Figure 2. As can be seen, the trend is an exponential increase in medically reported genetic disorders. Beyond any doubt, the trend is devolution. The data thereby demonstrate that the ravages of time produce mutations that result in devolution, the exact opposite of evolution (McKusick, 1998, Vol. 1, xiii - xviii)
By 2031, it is estimated (R2 = 0.995) there will be 100,000 human genetic disorders and by 2096 1,000,000 (see Figure 3). “At least one clinical disorder has been related to 1,318 of the mapped loci (roughly 30%)” (McKusick, 1998, Vol. 1, xiii - xviii). That suggests genetic disorder saturation of each locus by 2031 and supersaturation by 2096. These data confirm human devolution and suggest imminent permanent genetic extinction in this century. That evolution cloaks imminent human extinction as biological progress, thereby militating against countermeasures until permanently too late, identifies evolution as the summit of criminality.
Evolutionists are aware of genetic disorders like the sickle cell allele, a red blood cell mutation. For example in recent biology textbooks we find, “The sickle cell allele confers an unexpected advantage in Africa,” (Johnson, 1998, pp. 128, 183) and “Why is sickle cell anemia so common in some regions . . . The answer to that question is a surprising lesson in evolution . . . That mutation conferred an advantage wherever malaria was common, and thus it was favored by natural selection” (Miller and Levine, 2000, p. 233). Evolutionists call it “a classic case of heterozygote superiority” because survival of heterozygous individuals in malarial regions of West Africa is 1.0 compared to 0.9 for individuals with normal homozygous hemoglobin. They gloss over the fact that survival for homozygous sickle-cell individuals is 0.2. Also glossed over is that the survival average for normal hemoglobin, homozygous plus heterozygous with the sickle-cell mutation, is 0.95 compared to the sickle-cell average of 0.6. Even in malarial environments, normal hemoglobin permits a survival advantage of at least 35% and of as much as 70% (Hartl and Clark, 1997, p. 251). In a non-malarial environment, there were 75,000 hospitalizations per year of 6.1 days with significant mortality. “Thus, sickle cell disease is one of the most prevalent genetic disorders in the US” (Ashley-Koch, Yang and Olney, 2000). The evolutionists’ classic case of biological superiority thus is filling hospitals and graveyards with the afflicted. The sickle-cell allele is genetic disorder-disease MIM - OMIM number 141,900 and such disorders have been increasing exponentially (McKusick, 1998, Vol. 1, xiii - xviii). This demonstrates that evolutionists choose to put at risk vulnerable students and their families rather than admit that mutations are genetic disorders documenting devolution, not evolution. Genetic disorders are reason for alarm and countermeasures, not wanton misrepresentation. Cloaking significant morbidity and mortality as biological progress called, evolution, identifies evolution as lethal antiscience.
|Figure 3. McKusick: Mendelian
Inheritance in Man,
Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999 with Extrapolation
to the Year 2096. The number of medically reported
genetic disorders in 1966 was 1,487, in 1999
11,099. A prediction equation 99.5% accurate suggests
100,000 human genetic disorders by 2031 and
1,000,000 by 2096. These data are evidence of devolution
and suggest imminent human extinction.
Figure 4. If evolution were
true, these would be the percentage
In 1997 from genetic testing, the estimate was that everyone on average carried six genetic disorders (Gargus, 1997). The extrapolation suggests that by 2033 the average for every man, woman and child may be 60 or more genetic disorders. The data indicate that the greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet is in progress in non human life forms at a rate of 30,000 extinctions per year and accelerating (Leakey and Lewin, 1996, Chapter 13; Mass Extinction References, 1998). The clear message is that mutations accelerate the permanent extinction of all life forms, including humans. There can be no greater imperative than educating students and parents to those facts. The lethal masquerade of portraying mutations as advantageous biological evolution must be extinguished before it brings the entire biosphere, including all of humanity, to permanent extinction. Cloaking the greatest mass extinction in the history of our planet as the biological progress called, evolution, identifies evolution as the most lethal antiscience in the history of our planet.
Data on fatal human birth defects may be found in the medical epidemiological teratology literature. If evolution were true, then we should observe a decrease in fatal birth defects over time according to the first definition of evolution, change over time, and the third definition, natural selection. That means that a graph of the medically reported fatal birth defects should look like the hypothetical Figure 4. The data in Figure 4 are actually reversed. Like those data, evolution is false. The true data are plotted in Figure 5. As can be seen, the trend in spite of medical advances is an exponential increase in fatal birth defects (Sever, Lynberg and Edmons, 1993). Beyond any doubt, the trend is devolution. By 2085, it is estimated (R2 = 0.967) there will be 100% human infant deaths attributed to birth defects (see Figure 6). That suggests that the genetic disorder saturation of each chromosome locus by 2031, and the supersaturation by 2096, will manifest 100% infant deaths from birth defects by 2085. These data agree with the genetic disorder data in confirming human devolution and in suggesting imminent permanent genetic extinction in this century. That evolution cloaks accelerating human birth defect mortality toward imminent human extinction as biological progress, thereby militating against countermeasures until permanently too late, adds additional evidence to the identification of evolution as antiscience at the summit of criminality.
Figure 5. Percentage of Infant Deaths
Figure 6. Percentage of Infant
Deaths Attributed to
The World War II crimes of the Nürnberg Trials can hardly compare
to the slaughter of all humanity and the entire biosphere. Crimes
against peace, war
crimes and crimes against humanity are minor lapses compared to the extinction
of all life forms. Not just scores of strains of millions of individuals
? surfeit enough in horror beyond imagining ? are at stake, but rather
of species and many billions of individuals. And if this historically greatest
of all mass bioslaughters currently under way depletes the critical biomass
for sustainable ecobalance, then the universe’s only known biosphere
will erode irreparably to a barrenness as ghostly as the moon. No megacrime
in the history of this planet, or of this universe, comes close to that summit
IV. Summary and Conclusions
According to the most generous mathematical criteria for evolution, abiogenesis and monogenesis are impossible to unimaginable extremes. The three definitions of evolution are disguised definitions of devolution to extinction. For the entire biosphere including all humanity, our planet currently is in the throes of the greatest mass extinction in its history. The tens of thousands of different life forms permanently extinguished each year are accelerating the depletion of the biosphere to the level where it permanently will no longer support human life because no new life forms can be created and none can be evolved. That evolution cloaks these mass extinctions and the imminent permanent extinction of all humanity as biologically advantageous is identified here as wanton, lethal antiscience at the summit of criminality. There can be no greater imperative for the educational and governmental institutions of the world than countering the greatest mass extinction in history as induced over the last 140 years by the evolution movement. As a first step for self defense against imminent permanent human and biosphere extinction, the lethal antiscience, evolution, must be expunged worldwide.
CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly American Science Affiliation. 1996. A school board success story. American Science Affiliation science brief. ASA Newsletter, 38 (1): 1-4.
Ashley-Koch, A., Q.Yang and R.S. Olney. 2000. Hemoglobin S allele and sickle cell disease. American Journal of Epidemiology 151(9):839-845. Also a Human Genome Epidemiology (HuGE) Review, 5 August 1998.
Assmuth, J. and Ernest R. Hull. 1915. Haeckel’s frauds and forgeries. P.J. Kennedy & Sons, New York.
Becker, David R. 1999. The monera fallacy. Watchmaker 6 (2): 14-18.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin’s black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. Touchstone, New York.
Collodi, Carlo (Carlo Lorenzini). 1883. Le avventure di Pinocchio. Felice Paggi Libraio - Editore, Firenze. Note: The fairy with the turquoise blue hair animated the wooden marionette, Pinocchio, with the spirit of a boy, then later transferred that spirit into a spontaneously generated human boy. The discarded marionette in a corner became lifeless once more without a trace of the role it played in the abiogeneses of the boy. The parallels with the abiogeneses and the monogeneses of evolution are striking.
Constitution of the United States of America. 1787. Amendment I, "Restriction on Powers of Congress [Section 1*.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Ratified December 15, 1791. Note. This is frequently cited in legal cases as the Establishment Clause, the prohibition of a state religion, and in Civil Rights cases prohibiting prejudice against religion.
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. The blind watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. W.W. Norton & Co., New York.
Dembski, William A. 1998. The design inference:eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Denton, Michael. 1986. Evolution: a theory in crisis. Adler&Adler, Bethesda, Maryland.
Durant, Will. 1939. The story of civilization, the life of Greece. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Gargus, J. Jay. 1997 “Human genetic research, state of the science.” Session 4, October 13, Faith and science series, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church, Irvine, California.
Hartl, D.L. and A.G. Clark. 1997. Principles of population genetics. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
Humphreys, D.R. 1978. Using the Second Law more effectively. CRSQ 14: 209-210.
Johnson, G. B. 1998. Biology, visualizing life. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Austin, New York, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, Boston, Dallas, Toronto, London.
Johnson, Phillip E. 1993. Darwin on trial. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.
Leakey, Richard E. and Roger Lewin. 1996. The sixth extinction : biodiversity and its survival. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
Mass extinction references. 1998. http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html#anchor18171.
Mastropaolo, Joseph. 1999. Evolution is biologically impossible. Acts and Facts 28 (11): i-iv, Impact #317. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-317.htm. Institute for Creation Research, El Cahon, CA.
McKusick, V.A. 1998. Mendelian inheritance in man: a catalog of human genes and genetic disorders. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph Levine. 2000. Biology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Morowitz, H.J. 1966. The minimum size of cells. In Wostenholme, G.E.W. and M. O’Connor (editors), Principles of biomolecular organization, pp. 446-462. J.A. Churchill, London.
Rupke, N.A. 1971. A summary of the monera fallacy. In Walter E. Lammerts (editor), Scientific studies in special creation, pp. 169-183. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Sever, L., M.C. Lynberg and L.D. Edmons. 1993. The impact of congenital malformations on public health. Teratology 48 (6): 547-549.
Yockey, Hubert P. 1992. Information theory and molecular biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Mastropaolo 20 January 2001 #