Sunday, June 26, 2011

Is the Current Solar System Evolution Theory Nearing the Next Flip?

The epistemological foundation of evolution is interesting. Evolutionists know that evolution is a fact, but they do not know how evolution happened. In fact there is tremendous uncertainty about how the world could have spontaneously originated all by itself. This extreme epistemological difference between the fact and theory of evolution may seem contradictory but it isn’t. The fact of evolution is not contingent on how it happened. It merely is contingent on the end product. It is, as mathematicians say, path independent. The end product makes evolution a fact because the end product obviously would not have been intended by any intelligent agency otherwise capable of designing and creating the world. So Aristotle had it right with his disinterested and oblivious Prime Mover. Nature must have created itself. This makes for a striking dichotomy between evolutionary apologetics and evolutionary research. The former has no doubt evolution is a fact while the latter is full of doubt about how evolution occurred. In fact, evolutionary theories display an often humorous level of flexibility of explanation. Evolutionary explanation must be strictly natural, but beyond that anything goes, no matter how heroic, unlikely and cartoonish. And when the unlikeliness becomes too extreme even for the evolutionist, he simply calls upon the multiverse to improve the odds. If there is a near-infinity of universes, then anything can happen. An early example of this flexibility of explanation was in the theories of how the solar system evolved which to this day have continued to amass just-so stories. Now it appears the current theory of solar system evolution may be approaching another flip.

A century before Lamarck, Darwin and Wallace were imagining how biological evolution could have occurred, Bernoulli, Kant, Buffon and Laplace were imagining how the solar system could have evolved. In both cases the naturalists were certain evolution had occurred, though they had nothing but unfounded speculation about how it occurred. Bernoulli, Kant and Laplace had proven the solar system evolved with the usual silly evolutionary proofs.

A false dichotomy

Bernoulli’s explanation, that the sun’s atmosphere caused the planetary motions and alignments, was reminiscent of Descartes’ whirlpools. And while Bernoulli’s explanation was later discarded (as most evolutionary explanations eventually are), he introduced a powerful argument that became crucial in evolutionary thought and remains pervasive today.

Bernoulli argued that there are two possibilities: random design or a single mechanistic cause. Like ripples in the sand, patterns that we observe in nature are, according to evolutionists, necessarily a consequence of mechanism. It is yet another evolutionary argument that is difficult to explain because it is so silly. But that is the argument. In this false dichotomy, random design is evolution’s null hypothesis.

It was well known that the planetary orbits were aligned so as to form a striking pattern. Surely this could not have arisen by chance, argued the great mathematician. Bernoulli argued that either the planets fell into their orbits by chance or some mechanism caused their alignment. Bernoulli used a calculation to show the long odds of random design, thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that a mechanical cause did the job. He who would deny this, Bernoulli fallaciously concluded, “must reject all the truths, which we know by induction.”

Twenty years later Immanuel Kant elaborated Bernoulli’s argument. Why do planets revolve about the sun in the same direction? “It is clear,” explained the great philosopher, “that there is no reason why the celestial bodies must organize their orbits in one single direction.” If God had directly arranged their orbits then we would expect them to reveal deviations and differences:

Thus, God’s choice, not having the slightest motive for tying them to one single arrangement, would reveal itself with a greater freedom in all sorts of deviations and differences.

Theology was not discarded in the Enlightenment, as is often said, it was internalized. Laplace followed with his version of Bernoulli’s random design null hypothesis calculation, and cosmic evolution increasingly became accepted. The details were yet to be worked out, but it was fast becoming a fact.

Thus Laplace could on the one hand assure Napoleon of his evolutionary theory while, on the other hand, fail to explain new observations such as the anomalous orbits of Uranus’ moons, discovered by William Herschel. Here is how historian Stephen Brush describes it:

Laplace was familiar with Newton’s opinion that the regular motions of the planets proved their divine design. We know he was acquainted with Daniel Bernoulli’s prize essay of 1734 on the subject, since in an earlier paper he had cited Bernoulli’s method for calculating the probability that n bodies all move in the same one of two possible directions if their motions are selected by chance: 2^(–n+1). In that paper Laplace had applied the method to six planets and ten satellites, finding the probabilities to be 2^–15 = 1/32768. By 1796 he had made the coincidence even more unlikely by including the seventh planet, Uranus (discovered by William Herschel in 1781), as well as four more satellites, Saturn’s rings, and the rotations of five planets, the Sun, the Moon, and one of Saturn’s satellites (Iapetus). Thus of the 30 known motions in the Solar System, all are in the same direction. If these motions had been determined by chance, the probability that at least one of them would be different from the rest is extremely high (1–2^–29). [Nebulous Earth, Cambridge, 1996, p. 21]

It is astonishing that thinkers such as Bernoulli and Laplace promoted such metaphysical madness. Brush continues:

Laplace was aware when he first published his theory that Herschel had found the two satellites of Uranus to have orbits in a plane nearly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. In 1798 Herschel announced that the satellites of Uranus have retrograde motion. While this amounted to only a slight revision of his earlier result—the orbit plane is still nearly perpendicular but is tilted in the other direction—it was still [Herschel explained] “a remarkable instance of the great variety that takes place among the movements of the heavenly bodies” since previously all known motions took place in the same direction.

A remarkable instance of the great variety? Even the evolutionary false dichotomy was breaking down. But no matter, the narrative had become too compelling. Laplace simply ignored the anomalies (as evolutionists routinely do today), while including four other satellites announced by Herschel which were never confirmed:

In later editions of the Exposition, Laplace simply ignored the fact that at least two of the Uranian satellites have retrograde orbital motion, even though he added to his total the four spurious ones announced in the same paper by Herschel. Perhaps he considered that an orbit that is nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic should not be counted as retrograde; but I agree with Jaki that his treatment of this case is peculiar. Laplace did express doubt about the existence of the four satellites reported in 1798, and unless they are counted as retrograde (which Herschel did not claim) their inclusion scarcely affects the statistical argument.

In fact Laplace’s treatment of this case is not at all peculiar. Confirmation bias is standard practice in evolutionary apologetics. And that’s after the false dichotomy.

Laplace referred to his theory as the “true system of the world.” Sound familiar? Laplace could assure Napoleon that the God Hypothesis was superfluous not because Laplace had solid scientific details backing up his case—he didn’t—but by virtue of this ridiculous, fallacious line of argument.

Flexibility of explanation

Herschel’s anomalous satellites, with orbits almost perpendicular to expectations, would by no means be the only problem for Laplace’s Nebular Hypothesis. Problems mounted and, as usual, the theory became more complicated.

In Laplace’s Nebular Hypothesis, planet formation is a natural consequence of star formation. In Buffon’s earlier comet theory, planet formation is a separate event and not a consequence of star formation. This fundamental difference defines two categories of theories for the origin of the solar system—the monistic and dualistic categories, respectively. Monistic theories hold that all the major components of the solar system formed together. Dualistic theories hold that stars form by one process and planets form by a different process.

Since Laplace the mounting problems with the Nebular Hypothesis caused a reevaluation and search for alternate explanations. A major problem was that the sun rotates too slowly. The vast majority of the angular momentum in the solar system resides in the planets, a fact that was difficult to reconcile with the Nebular Hypothesis.

And so the twentieth century witnessed a series of monistic and dualistic theories competing to explain the solar system’s origin. There was the dualistic theory of a close encounter with a nearby star proposed by Chamberlin and Moulton and later by Jeans and Jeffreys. But such a close encounter could not reproduce the high angular momentum we observe in the planetary orbits. Also, material ripped from the sun by the encounter would be too hot to condense and form planets.

Russell proposed a new monistic theory calling for a rise in density of the collapsing solar nebula. Also, the idea of magnetic braking was considered as a mechanism for depleting the sun’s angular momentum. This was followed by the dualistic theory of Alfvén and Schmidt, and then the monistic theory of Kuiper and Urey. Schmidt’s dualistic theory was later refined in the Safronov–Wetherill model and after this Cameron promoted the “supernova trigger” hypothesis.

Both monistic and dualistic theories have been repeatedly proposed throughout the twentieth century. In fact, as Brush observes, the time scale for reversing the answer has grown shorter and shorter as we approach the present. Hence the origin of the solar system, says Brush, is an unsolved problem.

Today’s hypothesis

Today’s accepted theory for the origin of the solar system is a complex, cosmic choreography based on the Nebular Hypothesis. It goes something like this (as you read this keep in mind it is a fact because, as Bernoulli and Laplace argued, there obviously is only a single cause):

A large cloud of material, including dust, hydrogen and helium, collapses to form the sun and a surrounding disk. The rotational rate increases as the cloud collapses. It also heats up, especially in the inner region, say within the orbit of Jupiter. In this inner region, only rocky materials can withstand the high temperatures and they collect to form the inner planets, initially as molten blobs. Later they are coated with particles that collect on their surface. These become the crusts of the inner planets.

Between Mars and Jupiter there is no planet but instead we find the asteroid belt. This is because Jupiter perturbed the nascent planets that formed in that region, causing them to collide rather than coalesce. The result is a ring of asteroids, rather than a planet, circling the sun.

In the outer regions of the solar system, where the temperature is lower, icy dust collects to form small planetesimals that later attract the hydrogen and helium gases. Left over planetesimals may be captured as moons or are ejected to the outer reaches of the solar system to become comets. Hence the composition of comets and meteorites should represent the early solar nebula.

Later, the sun’s radiation and solar wind drive any remaining gas out of the solar system, and the sun’s rotation is dramatically slowed by magnetic braking. This is the rendition of Laplace’s Nebular Hypothesis from recent years, but there remain several anomalies to explain. For instance, Venus and Uranus have anomalous spin characteristics. Also, about a third of the more than one hundred moons in the solar system have irregular orbits, revolving about their host planet in the wrong direction for example. And some revolve faster than their host planet spins. This would not occur if they were formed by a condensing cloud. Also, Pluto’s orbit is more elliptical than the other planets, and significantly inclined from the ecliptic.

There is no general explanation for these many anomalies. It could be that huge impacts reversed the spin of Venus and tipped Uranus on its side. Perhaps moons that revolve too fast have dropped from a higher orbit, and thus increased their rate of rotation. Or they may have been captured by rather than formed with the planet.

As for Pluto, one idea is that a large planetesimal passed near Neptune, lost some energy and fell down near Jupiter which ejected it to beyond Pluto. In the process the orbits of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are all perturbed and Neptune, in turn, perturbs Pluto into its highly eccentric and inclined orbit we observe today.

Another difficulty with today’s theory of the solar system origin is the great size of the outer gaseous planets. In order to accumulate so much light gas they must have formed very quickly because early on the sun’s solar wind would have blown the gas out of the solar system altogether.

One explanation for this is that these planets formed via a faster acting mechanism known as disk instability. But if this works for Jupiter and Saturn, it leaves open the question of why Uranus and Neptune are not so large. If the disk instability mechanism gave Jupiter and Saturn their thick atmospheres, why didn’t it give thick atmospheres to Uranus and Neptune?

One answer is that our solar system formed in a cluster of stars. Perhaps the neighboring stars were so close that radiation heated the gases in the outer reaches of our solar system, making them more difficult for Uranus and Neptune to capture

A new flip?

In recent years the Nebular Hypothesis has met with even more failures. For instance, discoveries of distant planets have revealed star systems that make no sense on the Nebular Hypothesis. As one researcher commented, “These discoveries are making it very difficult to stick to the party line endorsing the so-called standard model.”

And now, new analysis of NASA’s Genesis mission reveals contradictory variations in nitrogen and oxygen isotopes. As one researcher explained:

These findings show that all solar system objects including the terrestrial planets, meteorites and comets are anomalous compared to the initial composition of the nebula from which the solar system formed.

And as another researcher concluded, that raises questions about the Nebular Hypothesis:

The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun—just how and why remains to be discovered.

Discovered? This has very little to do with scientific discovery. The researcher is confusing metaphysics with science. The reasons for the isotope variations will be explained, not discovered. New epicycles will be applied where needed, and perhaps there will be a flip to a new dualistic theory.

Of course there is nothing wrong with hypotheses about how the world arose. Even circuitous, heroic and unlikely theories are at least worth consideration. There should be no constraint or limit on our imagination. Theories can be posited, tested, evaluated and rejected, as appropriate. But of course evolutionary thinking isn’t about any of this. If it was then the true status of the theories would be admitted.

Evolutionary thinking is about injecting a religious agenda into science that evolutionists insist must be true. Religion drives science, and it matters.


  1. Wow Cornelius, your well really has run dry. In today's inane attack to the theory of biological evolution you start harping about hypotheses for the formation of the solar system. I thought such lame-brained stupidity was the realm of goobers like Ben Stein and Bill O'Reilly, i.e

    "evolution can't explain gravity"

    ...but I see you have no problem climbing down into the sewer with them. I suppose you have to keep pumping out the drivel and earn your Biola paycheck somehow.

    Evolutionists know that evolution is a fact, but they do not know how evolution happened.

    Science actually has an excellent idea about the processes that make evolution happen. You should read up on them sometime.

  2. Cornelius,

    It is commendable that you have read a summary of the Genesis research paper provided by the PR department of the JPL for Science Daily. However, you should not have stopped there.

    If you read the actual paper by McKeegan et al., doi:10.1126/science.1204636, you would know that the ratio of the isotopes measured by Genesis was expected to be different from the average for the solar nebula. The effect was predicted by Clayton in a 2002 paper (Reference 6) and observed in other molecular clouds. The new data present no problem for the solar nebula model, they confirm it!


  3. Oh CH, I don't suppose you could give us the ID explanation for the formation of the solar system by any chance, now could you?

    I won't hold my breath.

  4. oleg:

    If you read the actual paper by McKeegan et al...

    Hunter didn't need to read anything but old news in the Creationist blogosphere:

  5. CH: The end product makes evolution a fact because the end product obviously would not have been intended by any intelligent agency otherwise capable of designing and creating the world.

    Saying "designer did it" isn't an explanation. Therefore, it isn't eligible as a explanation for the phenomena in question. And, while it might not be obvious to you, explanations are the foundation of problem solving and knowledge.

    It's not that science actively excludes a designer. Instead, it's theists such as yourself that claim the terms design, goodness, etc are meaningless when applied to an abstract designer or God. As such, you're the ones who exclude a designer as being eligible as an explanation.

    Of course, this comes as no surprise as theists claim God cannot be explained. So, anything that is presupposed to have been caused by a supernatural cause is presupposed to be unexplainable. To acknowledge that any phenomena can be explained would be to concede that it is within the realm of human reasoning and problem solving.

    While there may not be a clear definition of what the supernatural is, the implications of supernatural causation is quite clear: a claim that any phenomena has a supernatural cause includes the implicit claim that an explanation for that phenomena is beyond human reasoning an problem solving.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. continued -

    Furthermore, this line of argument is built on smuggled theistic / philosophical assumptions which you implicitly share with your target audience. Specifically….

    - We cannot justify evolution using observations and induction. Therefore, it's bad science.
    - Theories are the result of generalizing observations.
    - Explanations for the seen resemble the seen.

    However, in the case of observations and induction, this is handwaving as it's true for all scientific conclusions. In fact, Popper suggests that our use of induction is actually a myth. For example the idea that planets are actually entire worlds, one of which includes the earth, which orbit the sun, does not come from generalizing observations of motions of lights in the night's sky, some of which backtrack and change direction. It only appears this way in hindsight.

    Instead, heliocentrisism was one of many theories that started out as conjecture. Tested by observations, not justified by them. Again, observations and induction alone cannot justify anything, let alone evolution or the formation of the solar system. As such, science is about correcting errors. "Getting it wrong" is an integral part of the process. Our knowledge of the physical world grows relentlessly more and more accurate because of it.

    Which, again, leads me to the same questions I've asked over and over again, only to be continually dodged.

    - Is there a solution to the problem of induction? If so, what is it?

    Without a solution, your objections are merely handwaving. While it might be inconvenient for your argument, all observations are theory laden.

    - As a confessing Christiaan, where do you put divine revelation on the traditional justificationailst hierarchy of deduction, induction and philosophy?

    Specifically, it's likely the answer to this question represents another theistic assumption that you smuggle into your objection.

    In other words, if there is no answer to the problem of induction, then you're merely waving your hands regarding a theory that conflicts with your personal religious views. Furthermore, placing divine revelation above induction is problematic as it's unclear how you determine what is true revelation and which is false, if any. Nor does divine revelation represent an explanation. Instead, its represents a "theological understanding."

    To quote the Wedge Document…

    Governing Goals

    - To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
    - To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

    It doesn't get any clearer than this.
    June 26, 2011 4:48 PM

  8. Here's the Wedge Document quote with formatting lost during the re-post...

    Governing Goals

    - To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
    - To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

    Again, the distinction being made here is quite clear. As is the motivation behind it.

    I have to ask, do theists really think this strategy isn't transparent and obvious? Do you really think we can't put the pieces together to explain this sort of behavior?

    Apparently, just as ID supporters have "faith" that the biological complexity we observe cannot be explained, they have "faith" that their motives will appear beyond explanation as well.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. Scott:

    ...theists claim God cannot be explained. So, anything that is presupposed to have been caused by a supernatural cause is presupposed to be unexplainable. To acknowledge that any phenomena can be explained would be to concede that it is within the realm of human reasoning and problem solving.

    That says it all.

  11. Pedant and Scott,

    Quote "So, anything that is presupposed to have been caused by a supernatural cause is presupposed to be unexplainable"


    We are not saying that the function of a designed system is not unexplainable.

    The problem is with evolutionists presupposing and forcing willy nilly evolutionary stories on ORIGINS.

    The problem is that evolutionists automatically say 'evolution' to every ORIGIN question.

    Forcing an evolutionary origins story on something that goes beyond the ability of natural processes is the stuff of superstition. Hence evolution is the modern day, ivory tower, elitist superstition. The church of Darwin presupposes the evolution of eye and everything else. Dull and imprecise imagination is all that is required as evidence.

    Most people that are skeptical of evolution (which form the majority of mankind), don't even know what the 'Wedge' document was. Instead they see some evolutionists driving their superstitious agenda to hinder freedom of science and speech. What clear thinking person wouldn't be against such an attack against good science?

  12. Tedford the Idiot said...

    Forcing an evolutionary origins story on something that goes beyond the ability of natural processes is the stuff of superstition.

    Except to date nothing has been found that goes beyond the ability of natural processes to create. "Don't know all the steps" isn't the same as "must be impossible", idiot.

    The church of Darwin presupposes the evolution of eye and everything else. Dull and imprecise imagination is all that is required as evidence.

    As always, we'd love to hear the ID explanation for all the empirical evidence / known intermediate stages seen in extant eye development. But as always, Tedford the idiot will run the other way when asked.

  13. Usual whiner complaints, only Scott tries to discuss.

  14. Correct.

    ...only Oleg and Scott try to discuss.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. Eugen, should I ignore you because you're the only one whining about what I discuss?

    Furthermore, the reason I keep asking these questions is because Cornelius has failed to address them time and time again. Why do you supposed that is?

  17. Neal,

    Again, while there is no clear definition of what the supernatural is, there is a clear implication of supernatural causation: it represents a boundary where human reasoning and problems solving cannot pass.

    As such, you're implicitly claiming that there can be no explanation for the biological complexity we observe. Perhaps you don't even realize this, but saying "that's just must be what the designer wanted" is not an explanation. Nor are un-conceived explanations.

    This is not to say that we can rule this possibility out with 100% certainty. Nor does it mean a good explanation may not appear in the future. However, merely saying "that's just must be what the designer wanted" is not an explanation. As such, we have no good reason to prefer it over a near infinite number of other possible state-of-affairs that we cannot rule out with 100% certainty either.

    Specifically, non-explanations tell us nothing about the subject matter at hand. Instead, they seek to reassign cause while, at the same time, rejecting the currently accepted explanation. They fail to explain the very subject the claim to address.

    Please note that explaining how scientific observations fits into your particular theodicy is not the question we're referring to here. Instead, we're referring to an explanation for the biological complexity we observe. These are two very different questions.

    Neal: The problem is with evolutionists presupposing and forcing willy nilly evolutionary stories on ORIGINS.

    Do you not think God directly created human beings in essentially the form we observe today?

    You're just conveniently grouping any and all explanations under the umbrella of "evolutionary stories" so you have a unified target to attack and rally against. You're real objection is to any expiation for phenomena you believe God was the direct cause.

    This is in contrast to phenomena you think God created as a secondary cause, such as gravity. He merely set things up and, for the most part, let's things take it's course. Otherwise, God would be directly pulling people to their deaths.

  18. Mr Scott

    I like your "hot potato" questions but I'll leave them to Cornelius.

  19. Scott, you continue to be confused about direct and secondary causes in regard to evolution.

    We don't need to discuss the possibility of God using evolution as a secondary cause like gravity. It's not like evolution is even viable and credible as a scientific theory. If it were, then we could discuss it as a secondary cause. It's a simple as that.

  20. Neal: Scott, you continue to be confused about direct and secondary causes in regard to evolution.

    Where exactly am I confused? Please enlighten us.

    Again, I'm suggesting that you're against the possibility of an explanation for any phenomena that you think has been divinely revealed to be a direct cause of God.

    Of course, please feel free to indicate what explanations you DO accept that clearly contradict this statement. I'm guessing that you will not and cannot.

    Neal: We don't need to discuss the possibility of God using evolution as a secondary cause like gravity. It's not like evolution is even viable and credible as a scientific theory.

    According to what criteria?

    You're implying we don't need to discuss it because you know it's been divinely revealed as wrong. I.E. non-supernatural causes cannot explain the biological complexity we observe it because it's been divinely revealed that it had a supernatural cause.

    I'm suggesting that…

    A. Explanations represent the foundation of knowledge, problem solving, etc. In the absence of an explanation, there is no knowledge - only an infinite possible states-of-affairs we cannot rule out with 100% certainly.

    B. The the current crop of ID claims can be discarded as an explanation for the biological complexity we observe, even without experimental testing, because they fail to meet the criteria of an explanation. Period. It's really that simple. Specifically, they represent convoluted elaborations of modern evolutionary synthesis.

  21. Part 1:

    My interpretation of what the author says is: "They all tried and try again, fail and fail again. My theory is simpler, I can't explain. But other theorist try to explain. Choose or die."

    OK, it's possible that I get the author totally wrong, but the url is: ""
    That's enough evidence that dogmatism or ad hominem argumentations are going to be postulated. Typical to what we know from history.

    I don't f**king care what the theory is, but don't forcibly and violently try to make others believe it damnit!!!1 ;) Again: Don't forcibly try to convince everybody, with motivations like: "no matter what the cost".

    Just to make it clear: "no matter what the cost" is generally a very very dumb, violent and ignorant theme anyway.

    Why can't people just be nice and listen carefully, understand and try to kill the other theory or fix it, instead of going against the person or group who believes it. That's so primitive, makes me believe that you people are relicts of an old epoche of history, or some of the failures of god.

    Simply put I don't believe in God, regardless if you like it or not. Even though my entire family believes in God, but they are at least open enough to accept that heartedly and I accept them. (they're moslem, now you probably look up right)

    Maybe a problem of Science is that your entire education is a lie, you're being brainwashed, directed, selected, or simply left in the unknown or isolated within your world. By telling you that the school system is just wrong and that this system creates people like you. Regardless if you're brilliant/genius or just average, the school systems grows violence/hate/angst or other symptoms in you that result in such blog posts and comments. Thus resulting in denial of real observations, if they conflict with hope/wishes or give other other uncomfort. (That's almost the groundings of sects/cults or religions)

    You don't realize that you behave like parents and simply generalize and lie about something you don't care to explain in all glory details. Let me introduce a theory now: If all children raised without parents, then there wouldn't be any more knowledge except generally verifiable observations. Right. But when a child was given the idea of the supernatural, then it would simply believe it. Why? Regardless if it makes sense or not, simply because it helps to reduce thinking to a minimum. "It is" more energy efficient. That's everywhere in nature/our world/universe: "Energy efficiency."

    Funnily even our language would grow the idea of something supernatural in those children, because it's plagued by the constant fight of believes and scientific theories of our ancestors.

    I wish I had more word to explain my idea of things. That's a valid critique towards the incompleteness of our language. Our barrier of communication.

  22. Part 2:

    You fail very hard at communicating the scope quite often. It would make it easier if you didn't say: "Nature" ..., but defined what Nature is for YOU. For ME Nature is Everything. For me Evolution isn't a distinct force of Nature, but it's also not explainable by me. I'm skeptical about the evolution theory in the form that I've learned about it. (Which is probably not much more than common knowledge)

    Let's come down to one point:
    The only important thing for us is: What do you want to say? what is your actual theory? How do you explain "..."? In short: results, results, results.

    I showed you that our minds have been indoctrinated with rules that resulted in growth of violent behavior in us.

    I showed you that our languages is a huge barrier, due to it's incompleteness and the inherited waste of our ancestors it carries.

    I showed you that I think the author of this blog post isn't telling you the truth. You can verify this! Read more about: to learn how.