7. Evidence FOR Evolution

 The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.


Evo-illusionists like Richard Dawkins cite the recurrent laryngeal nerve as sure evidence that evolution is the source of all of living nature. The RL nerve takes a rather circuitous rout to get to the larynx. It branches off of the vagus nerve inferior (below) the aorta on the right, and inferior to the aortic arch on the left. Because it branches low off of the vagus nerve and must take a pathway back up the larynx, evo-illusionists cite this as sure evidence that a perfect creator wasn’t the source for all living things. They say that the branching should be right next to the larynx. I really don’t know why evo-illusionists find they need to go to such incredible lengths, and such obscure places to find imperfections.  Why don’t they cite more obvious imperfections like schizophrenia, autism, paralysis, pathogens humans are susceptible to, blood diseases, Hitler, ALS, birth defects… as imperfections in human design. Humans have plenty of obvious imperfections that everyone is familiar with.  Why go to such an obscure place like the recurrent laryngeal nerve, a nerve few people on Earth are aware of nor care about? Is “going obscure” just another part of the evo-illusion? A way of confusing people? What is completely illogical is that all imperfections in human design prove is that there was an imperfect but ingenious source for all of living nature. It’s a leap across the grand canyon to think imperfections prove evolution. This notion would be laughed out of a logic class quickly.

Richard Dawkins, the current number one evo-illusionist said:

“If you think of it as the product of design, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a disgrace. Helmholtz would have had even more cause to send it back than the eye. ”

A disgrace? Does the routing of an incredibly well-designed nerve make the entire nerve “a disgrace”. Gad, what a gross exaggeration. Beside grossly exaggerating, the other problem for Dawkins and evolution is the recurrent laryngeal nerve gives off numerous branches below the larynx. It HAS to split off from the vagus nerve below the larynx to give off these branches. Didn’t Dawkins do his research before coming out with this flawed evidence? I think he might be able to do much better than using the RL nerve for his great evidence. Maybe I’ll send him a copy of Grant’s Atlas which has this to say about the RL nerve:

“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”

If you look carefully at the drawing above, you will be able to see some of the branches. This seemingly good evidence for evolution turns out not to be, so let’s take a look at some of the more obvious evolution supporting evidence.




There is no doubt that evolution is an ongoing process.  Natural selection and random mutations et al do and can act as herd/population strengtheners. That variations in gene pools produce changes in species over time is fact.  There is no argument from me on that.  My point isn’t that evolution doesn’t occur.  My point is that it isn’t within light years of being powerful or intelligent enough to form living nature and all of its incredible species and biological systems.  Not even close.  An objective look at many of the excellent fossil specimens collected over the last 150 years shows species with little or no change over millions of years. I have listed many examples on the first few pages of this blog.  Two are trilobites, that inhabited the earth for 300,000,000 years with very little change; coelacanth, a large fish, first appeared in the fossil record 410,000,000 years ago. Coelacanth still lives today, with nearly the exact same form as the ancient version. Would it seem that the minuscule amount of evolution displayed by the fossil record would be strong enough to invent, design, assemble, and sustain the numerous incredible biological systems of nature?

An objective look at the timeline for the appearance of species must be included in any discussion of evolution. The timeline of species shows that very early one-celled plants and animals preceded more complex versions, which eventually preceded humans. Carbon dating and layer dating make the given ages for the appearance and extinction of species look pretty accurate and acceptable. My beef is not with the biological timelines, but with the explanation of those timelines. Most will contain utterly astounding entries, like “410 MYA: evolution of hearing”. Just like that, hearing evolved. How? Not a clue can be given. It’s just as if saying it makes it true.

Many species have fossil representation over tens and hundreds of millions of years. The species themselves show no sign of the evolution Darwin envisioned. Evolutionauts excuse the fact by saying evolution occurred in rapid spurts, but for long periods of time, things remained static.  They even coined a term for this puzzling problem: punctuated equilibrium.  Evolutionauts frequently coin a term that describes its failures, as if the term coined is a scientific explanation for that failure.  It is a glaring failure, nothing less. Evolutionauts say that only 1 in 1,000 species that inhabited the earth have been found as fossils. They use this for an excuse that the fossil record shows no Darwinian evolution. (The ones that haven’t been found have the proof of evolution!) The question here is, how do they know how many haven’t been found since the fossils haven’t been found? To establish any number for anything that has never been found is impossible, but somehow evolutionauts can do it.

There is no doubt that species are related biochemically, and genetically to various degrees. Vestigial organs may be further proof of some sort of past relationships of different species. Five digit hands and paws, two eyes, two ears, etc. are the norm. Of course, some species are far more closely related than others. Humans are 98% similar to chimpanzees when looking at the DNA of both. Evolutionauts often tout this fact as sure evidence that humans branched off from an earlier common ancestor that we had with apes.  The only hitch here is that human and mouse DNA is 99% similar.  So what would that phylogenetic tree look like?  Early primate to mouse to human?  Human DNA is 30% similar to flower DNA. This fact certainly shows a deep biological connection between all species.

griz.jpg polarbear.jpg panda.jpg

Another piece of evidence that favors evolution is the fact that on each continent a different set of fauna and flora exist. Giraffes and lions are solely African, coyotes and grizzly bears North American, penguins Antarctic, etc. How could this be the case if evolution did not occur? Due to differing environmental conditions, minor evolutionary changes most likely occurred in the fauna and flora on different continents. These changes show up in closely related multi-continent species and would involve the most part coloring, size, morphology, and habits. Size modification refers to animal size and/or body part size. African lions, California mountain lions, and Bengal tigers are all very similar and differ mainly in size, color, and habits. The same is true with grizzly bears, polar bears, and pandas. It certainly is possible these species had common ancestors. This type of evolution is called “micro-evolution”. The evidence for micro-evolution is certainly strong. This is the evolution that Darwin saw in the Galapagos. Individual bird species (finches) that he observed on different islands had different colorations, beak sizes and shapes, and living habits. Single bird species had to be broken up into sub-species or new species to account for these differences. Darwin then tried to use micro-evolution to explain the entire origin of all species and their body parts, including hearts and eyes. In reality, micro-evolution is not even one trillionth of what would be necessary to form hearts and eyes. Also, there are no precursor fossils to giraffes, lions, and penguins, which makes the “origin of species” puzzle even more puzzling. There are no early giraffe fossils that show species with gradually lengthening necks. Just when something makes sense, there is also a reason that it makes absolutely no sense.

A strange conundrum for this evidence is the fact that the internal organs of all of these vastly geographically separated species is exactly the same. Hearts on the left, liver on the right above the stomach which is on the left, two kidneys, one pancreas……  Wouldn’t it be expected that the anatomy of different species separated by thousands of miles might just have some different type of internal anatomy, and function in different ways, and locate themselves in different positions? Why would all mammalian species have nearly identical internal designs? Species in Australia certainly have very different external body designs, but why not internal? I know that evolutionauts say the reason is common ancestry, but if that were the case, species should be much more identical externally as well. A species that is separated by vast seas and evolved very different external appearances, should also have evolved different internal appearances. But, sadly for evolution, this is not the case.  The fact that nearly identical internal designs exist with completely different external designs on species that are vastly geographically separated just doesn’t make sense and isn’t explained by random mutations being selected for by natural selection.

Another problem for evolution is the species that are identical, and that showed up in different continents millions of years after the separation of Pangea, the master continent. One example is that of flightless birds. The ostrich inhabits Africa, the nearly identical emu inhabits Australia, the nearly identical rhea inhabits South America.  These three birds first appeared millions of years after the split of land masses, and have been always separated by thousands of miles of ocean. Evolutionauts have tried to come up with plausible explanations for this conundrum. Floating logs with eggs traveling across the ocean were one absurd attempt. But any explanation they have come up with have been less than useless. So this conundrum has been ignored, and not addressed.

Evolutionauts cite changes that occurred in the color of a peppered moth population as a current proof of evolution. Today a battle rages between evolutionauts and creationists/anti-evolutionists over whether the peppered moth really did evolve and change colors due to environmental conditions. This is really nothing more than the perfect example of a tempest in a teapot. It is insignificant, no matter who wins the battle. According to evolutionauts, lichens on the trees that the moths frequented changed color from light to dark, due to smoke coming from local factories. The moth majority also changed from light to dark coloring, due to the fact that birds ate the white ones, as they were “easier to see”. Anti-evolutionists have evidence that the change in coloring didn’t happen. In reality, it doesn’t really matter at all who is correct. Because, even if the peppered moth did permanently “evolve” into a different color, this is not even remotely close to the kind of evolution that would be needed to produce sight, hearing, and beating four-chambered hearts. Nor is the increasing resistance of bacteria to an antibiotic a proof of evolution’s inventiveness, as is cited by evolutionauts. The least resistant die, the more resistant live and reproduce. Both of these “proofs” are explained by simple mathematics, and in no way prove that species, eyes, and hearts formed from natural selection.

ERV’s: Endogenous retroviruses have been celebrated as huge evidence for evolution. These retroviruses attach themselves to the genome of susceptible species. Because both chimps and humans had telltale markings at the same position on both genomes, it was surmised that they must have been marked millions of years ago when their common ancestor was infected. After the species split, the markings remained on both genomes, indicating that chimps and man had a common ancestor. But as usual, there is always an OOOPS.  There are many retroviruses that will infect multiple species.  They are not species specific. But the retroviruses are genome-position specific. Which means, they infect at the exact same position on the genome of different species. So a modern retrovirus can infect both chimp and man at the same location on their respective genomes, which pulls the rug out from the miracle evidence that is so celebrated by evolutionauts. The astounding thing is the evidence for evolution is always invisible to most people on earth. Bacteria that change nutrition habits. Mosquitoes that change eating habits. Lizards that show up with cecal valves that they supposedly never had before.  If evolution were how things came about, we should not need lab scientists to demonstrate microscopic changes. They should be all over for us to marvel at. The are not.

There is a strange mix of events that took place a half-billion years ago:

(1) New species and 70% of all body types and phyla showed up in the fossil record in a comparatively very short time during what is called the Cambrian Explosion. Neutral evidence for evolution.

(2) All species appeared suddenly without precursors.  Trilobites being again an excellent example. Bad evidence for evolution.

(3) A strange gap exists between single-celled organisms and the smallest multi-celled organisms which are composed of about 1,000 cells. Horrible evidence for evolution.

(3) More complex body types appear where earlier times had only single-celled species. So complexity did increase in rather rapid fashion. Good evidence for evolution.

(4) Species with fossils over long periods during that time showed little or no change. Horrible evidence for evolution.

(5) Many bio-systems evolved around that time.  Which means very little external evolution took place while tremendous changes and inventions were occurring internally.  Organs were forming.  Auditory and visual systems that should have shown up in the fossil record but did not were being invented and forming.  Bad evidence for evolution.

There is no doubt that Darwinian evolution did and does take place on a constant basis;  random mutations and natural selection as well. There is no argument from me on that fact.  I am certain that Darwin was right in assessing the different shaped beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands and concluding that evolution was the source of those beak shapes.  If massive Darwinian evolution indeed did take place that was capable of inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining complex biomechanical systems, where is the evidence for this? Where are the fossils that show the growth of limbs and bird wings; gradual evolution of eyes and hearts? None exists at all. Eye and ear evolution should certainly be prevalent in the fossil record.  Eyes do show up in fossils, and the bony sockets that gradually formed should be commonly found fossil evidence.   Until these fossils are found, the TOE will remain a figment of Darwin’s imagination, added onto by enormous layers of wishful evidence, cartoon drawings of morphing species, a plethora of pseudo-scientists, and supported by a massive amount of group psychology.


  1. Donson Jack said,

    Well least you agree that evolution in some form has taken place. ?

    From details we can always argue, or about different mechanics, thats what scientists do even at the moment.

    Are the Fossils only evidence which can ´prove´ evolution ?

    And please could you be honest enough to remove “Dawkins stumped” video, if you are really going to discuss with people, i dont think “creationist propaganda” is the way to go, perhaps you would enjoy reading Dawkins respond to this video.

    Im sorry…really difficult to believe that you are having objective, scientific approach to this matter.

    U are using every trick from “creationists hand book” 😀 , it really makes you look suspicious :\

  2. Alejandro said,

    Resistance of bacteria to an antibiotic could be, in the best of cases, an example of natural (or artificial) selection. But they use this as an example of evolution in action, just like appendix and wisdom teeth.
    About appendix, they say that in the last years, the number of cases of people born without appendix has increased (to prove that we are evolving to discard a vestigial organ) but maybe the thing that has increased is not people born without appendix but medicine technology and medical studies.

  3. stevebee92653 said,

    That’s how hungry they are for evidence. Any crumb will do.

  4. wunksta said,

    There are intermediate forms that wouldve lead up to the giraffe and you have not put forth a framework for what would prevent a species from changing its form from the original species or even further. Genetic changes in a population lead to speciation. There is nothing stopping it from continuing til the organisms are not recognizable.

    “Type begats type” is blatantly ignoring what makes a “type” a “type” and how genes change over time.

  5. gentledude said,

    For a person who claims to have been an ardent evolution support earlier in his life, you sure make a lot of incorrect assumptions about how evolution is thought to work. I bet you only had a passing interest in it, if any. What kind of studies on evolution did you do? You ought to give your audience an idea of what evolution-friendly books you read back in the day.

  6. stevebee92653 said,

    Read my channel bio at the bottom of YouTube, if you really want to know. I give a review of “The Blind Watchmaker” on page 18 in this blog.

  7. Radhacharan said,

    hey steve, ur website is really amazing, keep up the good work.

    Just wondering, you mentioned grizzly bears, polar bears and pandas for example. Are the differences between them really considered only to be microevolution? Because some evilusionists (funny term u coined up there 🙂 ) say that the differences are recognised as macroevolution. Thanking you kindly in advance, Hare Krishna.

    Radhacharan Das

    PS what do you think about the idea of Scientists hiding fossils, findings from the public? I mean many people believe this to be true. Books such as Forbidden Archaelogy, people such as steen mcintyre, richard milton etc etc, what do u think?

  8. stevebee92653 said,

    Actually I don’t like the term macro-evolution or micro. Because micro intimates that there is a macro. Populations do go through change. An evolution. No doubt. But, can those changes produce a heart/lung/blood vessel/blood/nerve system? Ans: no.

    I would say that evos should have hidden fossils. Because they don’t prove D. evolution at all. In fact, they prove it doesn’t occur. And there are plenty to go around. If a guy finds a fossil, he can be famous. He is excited. He wants to advertise his great find. So, I doubt if many are hidden for whatever reason.

  9. louisa (aaugoaa) said,

    hi steve i found it lol, i think if there were any of them fossils they would have found them by now :0)

  10. jan said,

    “gentledude said,

    April 14, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    For a person who claims to have been an ardent evolution support earlier in his life, you sure make a lot of incorrect assumptions about how evolution is thought to work. I bet you only had a passing interest in it, if any. What kind of studies on evolution did you do? You ought to give your audience an idea of what evolution-friendly books you read back in the day”

    Gentledude……….quit hiding behind your psuedo-name you use to help lessen the impact of critical thinkers reaction to your comments here…..You are not gentle at all…. you merely want to defer the “ass kicking” you know your speculations must conjure in this discourse to any thinking individual who is engaged in this topic………..
    Please, submit yourself to the concept of “critical thinking” (oh how novel) then come back and contribute…….Or, you also have the choice of continuing to make comments that are unimaginably insufficient to support your assertions regarding the topics you are commenting on………ohhhhshitttyoupansyasslemming………….

  11. Radhacharan Das said,

    hey steve, that was really interesting about Endogenous retroviruses, and how they are genome position specific for even different species. I think if we look into this one further, we can hit the evos big. Also I wanted to ask have you ever looked at the scientific evidences for reincarnation also known as transmigration of the self/soul? Dr Ian Stevenson studied it for 40 years. Thomas Huxley, the famous English biologist also thought it seemed plausible.

    There are many people who have investigated reincarnation and come to the conclusion that it is a legitimate phenomenon, such as Peter Ramster, Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Walter Semkiw, and others. Professor Stevenson, in contrast, published dozens of papers in peer-reviewed journals. : wikipedia

    Sir John Eccles the Nobel physiologist also has some interesting works which he calls “The mind body problem”, all of these and various other evidences I have not mentioned lead one to conclude that there is a non physical self that survives after we give up this present material body, soul perhaps? something to look into my friend steve. Hare Krishna

  12. jan said,

    “Sir John Eccles the Nobel physiologist also has some interesting works which he calls “The mind body problem”, all of these and various other evidences I have not mentioned lead one to conclude that there is a non physical self that survives after we give up this present material body, soul perhaps? something to look into my friend steve. Hare Krishna”

    Speculation, without scientific observation is what is suspected here. I think what you are doing is calling conjecture “evidences”….. Think about that…. I agree that your speculations are similar to assertions, by and large, made by “evolutionary science”, but really, no better…….

  13. jan said,

    Radhacharan Das

    You dumb ass. Your assertions are nothing more than CRAP, no more valid that unsubstantiated philosophical claims that are rampant………

  14. Radhacharan Das said,

    jan, you are clearly uncivilised. My post to STEVE was merely pointing him towards other fields of investigation/research. I only requested that he should look at them, I didn’t mean to say that they were definite proof of anything. And primarily they are not MY assertions. Anyways you should brush up on your general manners for they need to be better than they currently are, we are not quarelling! so you should retract your harsh statement directed at me, as I am not being offensive towards anyone. Good day, Hare Krishna. I wonder how old you are.

  15. Radhacharan Das said,

    Jan, here I will present to you some “arguments and statements” in regards to the existence of a non physical self. Please kindly read them with an open but objective eye, thank you, also please forgive me for any offences.

    1) “[T]he subject of conscious experience, the great core question of traditional philosophy, has simply been taboo in psychology and biology for most of this [20th] century.”

    Neurologists deal daily with the brain material that is the stuff of the mind. But for a variety of reasons, it is not the done thing for neurologists to attempt to extend their understanding of brain anatomy and physiology into actual theories of consciousness. …. The severity of this ban should not be underestimated. Quite literally, open speculation about consciousness could be enough to wreck a promising brain scientist’s career.

    Benjamin Libet, the Californian neurophysiologist …. admits he did not dare even begin his controversial experiments on the timing of mental experience until he had safely gained tenure as a professor and so could not be sacked. And even then, the pressure from his peers was such that for thirty years he kept his silence about any theoretical conclusions that might be drawn from his work. Libet just published the bare results, saving any private thoughts he might have about the nature of consciousness for a slim, speculative paper published only in 1994, long after his retirement. …. . . . Only a few neurologists either too old or too famous to care, such as the Nobel prize winner, Sir John Eccles, could risk their standing to talk about how the brain might produce the mind.
    2) Awareness itself, in contradistinction to the objects of awareness, is not a physical entity but rather a process of perception and understanding. While there is ample evidence of a systematic interdependent relationship between matter and consciousness, there is no rigid empirical evidence whatsoever that matter is the cause of consciousness.
    3) One can imagine the following exchange.
    “We are finally beginning to understand how consciousness is produced by matter.”
    “Wonderful! And when you say ‘matter’, what do you mean by that?”
    “Matter is what we study through science. We always rely on direct experience.”
    “So matter is what you are conscious of.”
    “Of course.”
    “So your consciousness is produced by something that you are conscious of.”
    If we define what we mean by matter, we will ultimately arrive at the statement, “Matter is what we experience.” After all, the empirical scientific method is based on experience: “We only accept what we can experience directly.” What I call “matter” is actually an impression in my consciousness. My primary experience is my consciousness, and my experience of matter depends on consciousness. We can define what we mean by matter without reference to consciousness, so the statement that consciousness is actually produced by matter doesn’t make sense.
    4) Let’s start off with the conscious faculties. Many scientists have agreed that there is indeed a problem in explaining consciousness,1 but that is not in itself an insuperable obstacle. However, David Chalmers has gone further and pointed out an “explanatory gap” between on the one hand, the physical function of the senses, and on the other hand, the actual experience of perception.2 In other words, one can describe the physical details of how the eye or the ear work, and how the eye or the ear interact with the brain, but nowhere does that necessarily entail conscious experience.

    There is no logical connection at all between descriptions of the physical sense organs and conscious experience. Chalmers says that we need an “explanatory bridge” to cross that explanatory gap. Then he says, “I suggest that the theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We will take experience in itself as a fundamental feature of the world alongside mass, charge, and space-time, and if we take experience in itself as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience.”
    5) Logical inconsistency in the objective view of perception
    The insuperable obstacle facing mechanistic scientists is that they cannot state their mechanistic theory consistently. M. Krellenstein has pointed out in his article Unsolvable Problems, Visual Imagery and Explanatory Satisfaction, where he points out the limitations of empirical explanation. Certainly, one can observe properties of the brain and describe them objectively.
    However, there can be no such concepts for explaining the brain’s production of consciousness, since the property to be explained — consciousness — is itself paradigmatically unobservable. Any observation-based concept will therefore be unable to connect to consciousness in the way required of a full explanation of consciousness.

    We may examine different kinds of eyes to try to see how seeing takes place. Eagles and vultures have very good eyes, the squid has another type of eye, and the snail has another. One can objectively examine the eye, nervous system and brain as separate objects. This is an objective investigation of the mechanism by which we see. However, we cannot objectively examine the fact that we see. We can describe the biochemistry and neurophysiology of vision, but the actual fact that we see, the actual faculty for seeing cannot be seen as a distinct, separate object. We cannot objectively describe vision in such a way that a congenitally blind person can understand and realize what vision actually is.

    Since mechanists cannot see the fact of vision, they cannot describe objectively what seeing is, and if they cannot even state definitively what vision is, they cannot have a consistent theory of how it takes place. We can state the insuperable obstacle in another way. To describe and explain perception objectively, one must “get outside it” to view it as an external object. However, it is impossible to “get outside” perception, because it is not an external object; it is the subjective process by which we perceive external objects.
    6) Nobel Laureate Sir John Eccles performed extensive research to demonstrate that the mind is not just a physical phenomenon, and that mental states, although not physical, nevertheless have their own reality. Neurophysiologists can measure the blood flow in specific areas of the brain, and have shown that this is a function of neuronal activity in the brain. Several experiments have shown that when a subject engages in concentrating on mental tasks, the blood flow increases in the same characteristic area of the brain.1 The increase in the total blood flow to the brain was sometimes greater in the case of silent thinking than when the subject engaged in intense perceptual and motor tasks.2 Eccles comments, “There is good justification for their conclusion that silent thinking is hard brain work!”

    These experiments show that the subjective experience of consciousness is not a by-product (“epiphenomenon”) of brain states. The reverse is true; the change in the local blood flow to the brain is the result of the subject engaging in particular mental activity. The subject’s desire to perform a particular type of silent activity stimulates the brain. This indicates that the conscious subject is using the brain to perform a particular type of mental activity.
    7) The Nobel neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles gives experimental evidence that the conscious self exists outside the world of physical entities, and acts on the body through the medium of the brain. Extensive experimental studies have shown that mental acts of attention and intention activate appropriate regions of the cerebral cortex. An intention to move, for example, initiates the firing of a set of neurons of the supplementary motor area about 200 milliseconds before the intended movement takes place.1 Eccles suggests that the self can make the brain fire specific neurons, which activate the right muscles for particular activities to take place.
    8) Modern research on computer interaction with the brain has shown conclusively that the individual can control the body by an effort of will. Scientists can now implant a detector in the brain, connect it with a computer, and set up a system whereby a person who is totally paralysed (for example, a quadriplegic) can turn lights or a television set on or off; change channel on the television; use the computer to open and read e-mail, and reply to it; and play computer games. Using the same process of implanting an electrode in the brain, scientists have found that monkeys can learn to use a mechanical arm to feed themselves and play computer games. In other words, a conscious individual can learn to change events in the physical world simply by intending to. This prosthetic limb technology appears to be a working model of the interaction between the brain and the conscious self.
    9) Perhaps the most compelling argument against the idea that the “I” is produced by something in this physical world is that the conscious “I” is distinct from this world. The world is constantly changing, and my body is constantly changing, but my “I-ness” does not change. I and people in general consider, “I am the same conscious individual that I was when I was five years old, 20 years old, and 50 years old.”
    10) The prominent English physicist, Roger Penrose, in his book The Emperor’s New Mind, writes:
    In short, what makes human beings human is not a material quality; it is a spiritual one, and it is clear that its source is an entity apart from matter.1
    In the conclusion of his book, Penrose comments:
    Consciousness seems to me to be such an important phenomenon that I simply cannot believe that it is something just “accidentally” conjured up by a complicated computation. It is the phenomenon whereby the universe’s very existence is made known.

    Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger makes this point succintly:
    So, in brief, we do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it, we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture. Our bodies belong to it.
    11) Near death experiences and the conscious self

    Practical evidence for existence of the conscious self comes from Near Death Experiences (NDE’s). The journal Lancet reported an investigation in Dutch hospitals over a period of 13 years. 12% of patients who were revived after a heart attack had had a “very deep” near death experience. Even though the body and the brain were dead, and there was no physical cause or basis for perception or consciousness, the patients could see from outside their body what was happening in the operating theatre. Some of the patients who were revived, who saw what happened in the operating theatre, were actually blind, but yet when they were clinically dead, they were able to see what was happening.

    How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG? . . . Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception [veridical perceptions: perceptions that could be verified as corresponding to actual events] during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience. NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation. …. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.
    12) Evidence for reincarnation

    If reincarnation were factually true, this would also provide evidence for the existence of the conscious self independent of the body. Probably the best known and respected worker in this area was Ian Stevenson, who collected at least 2,600 cases of people who claimed to remember past lives. Many of these were children. In a large number of these cases (at least 250 very strong ones, and many lesser cases), children would make as many as 40 specific statements about her past life, most of which turned out to be true. They would point out her former relatives (even though people tried to trick them), and related to them as one would expect from the previous relationship. They often gave personal, intimate details that only the past-life person could possibly have known, like where a container of gold was buried in the house, or a secret she had told only her husband. Stevenson reported many cases where birthmarks or defects in the limbs corresponded to injuries sustained in the supposed previous life.
    13) An Australian hypnotherapist regressed people to “previous lifetimes” under hypnosis. One Australian subject, for example, remembered living in Somerset in England, and spoke with a Somerset accent, although she had never been outside Australia. Under hypnosis, she remembered living some 300 years previously, and described places that were not present on modern maps. It was only when they looked at old maps that they found the names of places that she was talking about. They also found the names of the family that she described in a parish register of the time. Under hypnosis, she described a house near a waterfall, and a pattern on a large stone on the floor of the house. They brought her to the actual place, and she recognised where she had lived. The stone that she had already described was now deeply buried in chicken droppings, but when they cleared away the chicken droppings, there was the stone and the pattern that she had described. This is good evidence for incarnation, and therefore for the continual existence of the conscious self after death. There are other ways of explaining it, but that is the most economical way of explaining it.
    14) Self Validating – Hume’s attempted rebuttal of the existence of the conscious self

    There has been a massive prejudice against accepting the existence of the conscious self. A famous example is David Hume’s attempted rebuttal of the existence of the conscious self. Previously, René Descartes had put forward his famous theory, “Cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I am.” Descartes said, “I can doubt everything. I can doubt the reality of the world around me. I can even doubt the reality of my body. But I cannot doubt the reality of the doubt. So someone is doubting. That means that I exist.”
    Later, the empiricist David Hume challenged this idea:
    For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other …. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and [I] never can observe any thing but the perception. …. If any one, upon serious and unprejudiced reflection thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I call reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me.

    Note Hume’s language; the “I” is self-evident in what he is saying: “When I enter most intimately … I call myself … I always stumble …. I never catch myself …. I am certain there is no such thing in me.” Who is the “I” was looking for the self? That is the conscious coordinating self. The conscious self, as we have just defined it, is not an object; it coordinates the conscious faculties so that we can perceive and interact with objects. When Hume looked for the self, the self coordinated the search for the self. Thus, the conscious self is self-evident, and one cannot deny it without contradicting oneself. The conscious self is a self-validating entity.
    15) This was something Steve posted earlier on another page of this blog:

    What positive evidence is there that consciousness and the self are not merely a
    physical process of the brain? We have experimental data, for one thing. Neurosurgeon
    Wilder Penfield (who is considered the father of modern neurosurgery) electrically
    stimulated the brains of epilepsy patients and found he could cause them to move their
    arms or legs, turn their heads or eyes, talk or swallow. Invariably the patient would
    respond by saying, “I didn’t do that, you did”. According to Penfield, “the patient thinks
    of himself as having an existence separate from his body”. No matter how much Penfield probed
    the cerebral cortex there was no place where electrical stimulation would cause a patient to
    believe or decide. That’s because those functions originate in the conscious self, not the
    brain. A lot of subsequent research has validated this. When Rodger Sperry and his team
    studied the differences between the brains left and right hemispheres they discovered the
    mind has a casual power independent of the brains activities.

    Consciousness is inner and private to the individual, and is experienced by introspecting.
    We have a way of knowing about what’s happening in our minds that is not available to anyone,
    including doctors, and neuro-scientists. A scientist could know more about what’s happening
    in our brains than we do, but he can’t possibly know more about what’s happening in our minds.

    “Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able
    to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points,
    agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not
    worth the effort? No one, certainly not Darwinian (evolution) as such, seems to have any answer to this.
    The point is that there is not a scientific answer.” Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse.

    You may also want to do some extensive reading on astral projection, I personally have had some half convincing experiences of perceiving my gross material body from a position which is external to it. My good friend who seems completely sane by the way lol, had a very vivid outer body experience in which he came out of his material body and was able to perceive his friend who was outside of his house buying an ice cream, and then my friend returned back to his physical body and opened the door when his friend knocked on it, only to see his friend holding an ice cream. Both I and my friend practise mediation daily, and we don’t take any form of intoxicants, not even caffeine etc, so our experiences don’t seem induced by drugs or intoxicants. Actually there are a lot of people who ardently claim to have outer body experiences, especially with certain meditational practices. There is one teacher named Jaggi Vasudev who is known to teach people how to perform astral projection (outer body experiences), anyways the proof is in the experience, and this experience is not limited to a few people, but rather many many people. Add the various arguments, demonstratable evidences that tcertain brain activities are prompted by willing and you have a good case for the existence of a non physical self.
    P.S. the information that I have provided is just the tip of the iceberg, there is so much more. Thank you for reading Jan, please reply kindly and respectfully.

    Radhacharan Das

    • stevebee92653 said,

      What a fascinating read. Thanks! I printed this comment because I didn’t have time to read it when I did. I just sat down and gave it a read and it was a great one. I lose you a bit on the reincarnation and astral thing, but I know those experiences have been recorded. Just not to me or anyone I know. With the exception of my brother-in-law who almost died, and said he had one. So is that delusion? Real? Check favorite comments. You are going to have the whole damn thing.

  16. jan said,

    “Thank you for reading Jan, please reply kindly and respectfully.”

    RD, I will try to do what you ask. It may take some time based on my schedule.

    Best Wishes

    • Radhacharan Das said,

      Hey Jan, thanks for your response. Once again forgive me for any offences. I always like to read your responses to people on this blog, especially when you respond to AD Parker haha. Take your time with your response as I am aware life can be very busy and all. PS if you respond to me, please make it simple somewhat, because your english can be a little complex for me as I speak a few languages and English is not solely my best language. Hare Krishna, Best Wishes.
      Radhacharan Das

  17. jan said,

    I believe many thinking and informed individuals would agree that it is “scientifically” and therefore intellectually impossible to adequately substantiate the necessary pathways to “current conscious awareness” in the physical sense. As well as the apparent physical foundations that “house?” conciousness. That is to say that no one really knows. Therefore, this leaves the door open to any philosophically oriented “guru” who may wish to develop a following, based on a certain philosophy that cannot be “disproved”. My opinion is, that, as inadequate as it may seem, to base ultimate beliefs on anything but corroboration in the form of some sort of sense of historical fact, is ludicrous……….(dang it, more periods) If you are somehow trying to, in a physical sense, “prove” your “mental” conclusions……

  18. Radhacharan Das said,

    Here’s another interesting organism steve: And yes parker this is a cut and paste if that’s okay with you

    The Emerald Cockroach Wasp

    The emerald cockroach wasp (Ampulex compressa, also known as the jewel wasp) is a parasitoid wasp of the family Ampulicidae. It is known for its reproductive behavior, which involves using a live cockroach (specificially a Periplaneta americana) as a host for its larva. A number of other venomous animals which use live food for their larvae paralyze their prey. Unlike them, Ampulex compressa initially leaves the cockroach mobile, but modifies its behaviour in a unique way.

    As early as the 1940s it was published that wasps of this species sting a roach twice, which modifies the behavior of the prey. A recent study using radioactive labeling proved that the wasp stings precisely into specific ganglia. Ampulex compressa delivers an initial sting to a thoracic ganglion of a cockroach to mildly paralyze the front legs of the insect. This facilitates the second sting at a carefully chosen spot in the cockroach’s head ganglia (brain), in the section that controls the escape reflex. As a result of this sting, the cockroach will now fail to produce normal escape responses.

    The wasp, which is too small to carry the cockroach, then drives the victim to the wasp’s den, by pulling one of the cockroach’s antennae in a manner similar to a leash. Once they reach the den, the wasp lays an egg on the cockroach’s abdomen and proceeds to fill in the den’s entrance with pebbles, more to keep other predators out than to keep the cockroach in.

    The stung cockroach, its escape reflex disabled, will simply rest in the den as the wasp’s egg hatches. A hatched larva chews its way into the abdomen of the cockroach and proceeds to live as an endoparasitoid. Over a period of eight days, the wasp larva consumes the cockroach’s internal organs in an order which guarantees that the cockroach will stay alive, at least until the larva enters the pupal stage and forms a cocoon inside the cockroach’s body. After about four weeks, the fully-grown wasp will emerge from the cockroach’s body to begin its adult life.

    The wasp is common in tropical regions (Africa, India and the Pacific islands).

    Sounds pretty hostile, but very it’s very very interesting.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Gad. Amazing read. Thanks!

  19. gene said,

    I’m sure RD has an explanation

    • Radhacharan Das said,

      lol for a second there I thought you meant me, I’m also RD. Anyways take care.

  20. gene said,

    Yes I meant Dawkins. Very interesting post above,Rad. If I may point you to another amazing question – nature of reality. Check out book by Bernard d’Espagnat “On Physics and Philosophy”

    • Radhacharan Das said,

      Hi gene (Hygiene) 🙂 just kidding, I will check out some reviews and find out basic contents of that book and try and get a copy, thanks.

  21. Chewbywhooby said,

    So, you admit the mechanism, now can you demonstrate how and where it starts and stops?

  22. albarrs said,

    Apparently there is still a misunderstanding about the definitions of “evolution” depending on which side of the fence one comes down on. Of course there are those who continue to sit on the fence to see which side will win the battle. One needs to establish the definition of what he/she is talking about when talking or writing about evolution…

    One species evolves into a new and totally different species with “transitional” similar specimens appearing over time having traits of the original species and traits of the species it is in the process of becoming.

    One species evolves or changes over time due to external and internal stimuli but never evolves into a totally new species. Species either go extinct or live on similar to their ancestral specimens

    Of course I don’t know how a Darwinist’s evolving species knows what it will become before it begins rearranging and replacing body parts and appearance…

    Al Barrs

  23. Mikie Sambo said,

    So you just randomly selected a few felines you think are related due to their similarity, and neglect to mention all the other felines. Are you implying that the ones you chose are related to each other, but not related to everything else?….. And if so, how do YOU tell what is related and what is not?

    Could you try that with Crustaceans for example? It would be nice to see you find a way to distinguish related Crustaceans from “unrelated” ones.

Leave a Reply to Radhacharan Das Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: