Evolution: Beyond Empirics
Here we use the term species loosely, the classification of species is used to reference a grouping of animal kinds that cannot viably interbreed to produce offspring (for instance, a feline cannot breed with a bird to produce any viable living creature).
Erasmus Darwin, father --or, more aptly-- grandfather of evolution, a highly learned man born to the affluent class of the mid-eighteenth century, was --as all men of his calibre were-- a Freemason; a title which was passed down to his sons. Charles Darwin's affiliation with the Masons is publicly undisclosed --although all signs point to his membership, including the word of current active Freemasons, it would be damaging to society to raise such a stir regarding the supposed creator of such a strict and foundational social dogma. It is not as pertinent of a thing that Darwin is a Freemason; what is more important is the adoption of the theory of evolution by such high-class groups of social climbers and perennialists. The Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Templars: they are all unimpressive and all the same, they are groups of social climbers who capitalise on capitalism; they are groups of enlightenment thinkers, they are groups of schemers, they are the philosopher kings of Plato's Republic. Enlightened being the key word, they believe they are the illuminated, they have pride and thus believe, in the same telltale tune of Satan's fall, they are above God --indicating that the formulation of the theory is not directly an attack on truth but an extension of a schizophrenic worldview.
Enter evolution: a theory proposing that all living organisms originated from a single living cell --a single living cell whose genesis arrives to us from chance; the single cell begins to replicated --as that is what is instructed of it by chance-- and with every iteration there lies a genomic mutation. A sound theory until you realise that for this to happen, for a-biogenesis to occur, the single cell must be emergent from an impossible array of chemical reactions simultaneously occurring to generate a single cell with fully formed cell walls, membranes, nuclei, lysosomes, mitochondria, copuli, etc. and including all the proteins of 288 amino acids of 12 varying types which can be combined in 10 to the three-hundredth different ways about 600 times --ironically, breaking the principle of cell theory which states that all cells come from cells. This being impossible because it implies that all the chemical compounds pushed tightly together are somehow prevented with reacting and ruining the entire process --that is to say, sudden a-biogenesis is clearly impossible. The only way a single cell could be created would be by some assembly line, but even then you run into glaring struggles as the cell is a thing which, in many aspects, is self-containing. Forgetting all of that: still, multicellular organisms can never change species via mutation as this would imply the obliteration of the taxonomic classification of species as they become nebulous creatures that no longer maintain categorical and biological homeostasis. Such random mutations which cause the breakdown of specie-ial social congruence; i.e. they become ugly, they are freaks as the interspecies adaptations are beyond the scope of microevolutionary changes caused by the necessity of adaptation which drives the collective to evolve. Natural selection is an observable phenomenon; macroevolution is a falsely constructed noumena --a literal false god.
The deconstruction of the theory of evolution is a tricky thing, being that the erroneous theory itself is ill-defined --even when reading The Origin of Species, it is blatantly evident that the author lacks any true scientific rigour --a thing which does not even exist in the current climate of think tank and conclusatorial research funding. The theory itself has no grounding whatsoever: it will forever remain a theory because (1) it is never observed, (2), it posits a cyclical origin, and (3) it suggests fundamental changes which destroy the natural order, being that they are contradictory to such (such being observable phenomena).
One kind of animal has never and will never produce offspring of a different kind (a bird and a rodent can never interbreed, two birds cannot produce a monkey); that is to say, there are clear set boundaries between creatures, the existence of which disproves evolution single-handedly, these key definitional boundaries which can never arise from any sort of monotheistic, new-age enlightenment philosophy --a philosophy stating that all is one necessarily indicts all differences, oneness cannot produce two-ness or three-ness, it cannot multiply or replicate as these are metaphysical acts which are beyond the purview of a single one. This philosophy of singularity seems to always arise from any non-Christian religion; e.g. paganism is the religion of worshipping godly forms of men or the flora of nature, their idols are predicated from nature, ergo it is cyclical and becomes man worshipping his own very nature, thus he worships himself as the supreme deity via the cyclicality, so he must be God and all stems from him i.e. monism; the Hindu will say that all is Brahman as he worships himself --which is admitted to quite openly in any ancient Vedic text; the Darwinist says, in much the same vain, that he was born of randomness and puts his faith in the non-existence of anything beyond the realm of the empirical, he is a mechanist --he is a worshipper of the machine, the clockwork of reality and therefore all, to him, is logic --but logically, can we truly know what logic is? There is no logical explanation for the existence of truth within the reality of logic; so then this is the cycle for the man of logic, a logical fallacy of predication of logic out of logic, unless, of course, he can learn to see past logic and realise that logic is logical but only when predicated beyond logic in its antithesis.
A much more likely explanation for diversity in species has much more to do with natural selection --as one might expect. A recent paper published in 2022 by Nature, titled Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana, suggests that there exists mutational biases which, quote, "provides an alternative explanation for many previous observations in eukaryotes, including reduced genetic variation in constrained loci and the genomic distributions of widely used population genetic statistics." In light of this new information, it can be assumed that there exist root classes of creatures (species) that have the skill of adaptation ingrained in them from birth from either their biological DNA or their conscious need for adaptation or a cooperation of the two; either way, this is a complete abandonment from the original thesis of evolution --that is, the mutational bias will disallow for the self-destruction of the species classification, because for a species to change species it must first go through a transitional period of freakish mutations which in no way aid the persistence of the organism, but rather isolate it and lessen its lifespan --in a similar vain to how our bodies fight off foreign organisms, the species will fight off these aberrations.
Even in the paradigm of evolution, there is no way to know for certain the chain of evolution; given that there is no fossil evidence for the famed missing link between the proto-simian and any of its offspring --in actuality, we do not see any intermediary species of anything, if we did, we would end up with a virtually infinite quantity of animal types, which has its own never-ending issues.
The field is, unsurprisingly, filled with hoaxes, hoaxes that took themselves seriously because they are not hoaxes but deceptions, many people do not even realise to this day that Lucy was a manufactured fraud --likewise, the Piltdown man, the Nebraska Man, the Java Man, the Orce Man, the Heidelberg Man, the Homo rhodesiensis, the nutcracker man etc. etc. Similarly, stating that we have a genetic relation of over 90% to chimpanzees does not mean what people think it does as the thing in comparison is the things responsible for building proteins --undoubtedly, they're going to be the same, all eukaryotes share protein types; this is why we are 90% genetically related to cats, 60% to fruit flies and bananas, 80% to cows and 95% to dogs. We should not even be looking at genetics or DNA because we barely understand what DNA is or how it really works, this is not science and should not even be equated to an educated guess.
One may respond by saying that the mutations are minuscule and gradual --implying that we can observe the effects of evolution on the scale of genetic differentiation. Rather than immediate similarity, we should look at mutational build-up. However, doing just this proves, once again, the wrongness of this theory. Looking at any uni-parentally inherited DNA of non-autosomal chromosomes where we would expect sameness to indicate ancestry as they do not go under any genetic recombination and are virtually the same for every human, we see that man shares not even 50% of his Y-chromosome with the chimpanzee, they are of completely different architecture and contents --in fact, man has more in common with the gorilla concerning the Y-chromosome than he does with the chimpanzee.
Most animals have four legs, a rib cage, a brain, a spine, a neck, a head, knees, a pelvis, eyes, ears, a mouth, a tongue, lungs, a stomach, and so on; but these features don't mean that they are all close evolutionary-ancestors --just because all life is carbon-based, does not mean that they all come from a single carbon thing-- they exist like this because it is required because there is no other way, we cannot make hydrogen chains and have hydrogen-based life because it is too reactive, it is carbon because it is the perfect element --lightning always expresses itself in a Lichtenberg figure every time, it is simply nature.
Anyone formally trained in logic will understand that Epicurean materialism is utterly flawed and an untenable position; it invokes the destruction of all categories, all metaphysics, all forms, and ethics, it destroys the will, it removes meaning and leaves us in absurdity as logic collapses in on itself via relativity and no one can know anything, and yet we do; it's simply observable incorrect and incoherent. Evolution should be simply thought of as the non-Christian's answer to the influence of things beyond reality within the logical system of reality --that is, the expression of a thing from outside reality within reality via logic, akin to dropping a pebble into water, the water can infer that a thing has landed in it by the experienced displacement, but it cannot see the pebble, the pebble exists to the water only as a pressure point.
Peter the apostle writes that in the final days, the people will question: "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation," in other words: we will say that all things will carry on as they always have done, creating the illusion of uniformitarianism --a thing which undermines the very concept of time. Normative authority cannot be the predicate for the extreme ultimate; the logos of reality functions like a tree (actually like a range of trees but for the sake of argument picture one tree) whose trunk is rooted in the ground --this is the tree of predication, each thing stems from another thing; to test the validity of a claim we can look to the tree, and we can follow the branch all the way down to the base, but what happens now? The tree has ended, logic cannot be the predicate for logic, or else we would have an infinite tree, and therefore we could not logically find the root of any truth; what happens is that we must recognise that there is a beginning to logic, logic starts from its logical predicate which is --literally- beyond reason --the hyper-reality.