(15) Degeneration vs. Evolution

https://www.facebook.com/groups/974332723871967/permalink/1045165073455398/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v
Chapter 15: Degeneration vs. Evolution

Degeneration is like the leaning tower of Pisa. It would naturally collapse on its own, but there are forces the slow down its collapse. Degeneration is like a military defense where the line is moved back several times and reinforcements are brought in from an ally.

The naturalists have censured the Theory of Degeneration from public debate and instruction. Once the Theory of Degeneration has been censored, the Theory of Evolution seems like the only logical alternative. The naturalists assert that the aspects that both theories have in common must still be called Evolution, or microscopic evolution, even though those aspects do not support Evolution at all. When there is evidence that clearly indicates Degeneration and disproves Evolution, the naturalists deceptively misinterpret the evidence according to the framework and vocabulary of Evolution.

The stability of ecosystems is delicate but resilient. The introduction of a single invasive species can wipe out many of the native species. In order for the diversity of species to be maintained within an ecosystem, an ecosystem must remain close to its designated stable equilibrium. Major changes to ecosystems naturally cause a decrease in the diversity of species within their population. Ecosystems naturally collapse before reaching a new point of stability that has less diversity. The diversity of species is in a chronic process of degeneration through a series of intermittent ecosystems collapses. This process of degeneration can be slowed, but it cannot be reversed. The overall diversity of species will naturally decrease and will never naturally increase. There is a remnant of diversity of species after each ecosystem collapse. If even the minor environmental changes caused the ecosystems to collapse, then there would not even be a remnant of diversity of species still existing today. Therefore, only the major environmental changes cause ecosystems to collapse. The minor environmental changes can be counteracted through regulation, natural selection, and genetic amendment.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/64/the-war-against-truth

In the future do you expect that the number of species will naturally increase or decrease? Do you think that humans will design more new species than the number that will go extinct in the future? Do you think that humans will be able to design more complex stable ecosystems or only cause the existing ones to collapse to a new point of stability?

Regulation is like businesses that react to new government policies. Natural selection is like a President that vetoes some unfavorable bills. Genetic amendment is like a legislature that ratifies a new amendment to the constitution.

All living organisms are designed with complex systems that allow individual organisms to regulate to changing environmental conditions. All living organisms are able to regulate internal conditions in response to changing external conditions, which is often called homeostasis. For example warm blooded animals can regulate their body temperature. Living organisms need to regulate many different factors such as temperature, PH, oxygen levels, sugar levels, poison removal, etc. in order to survive changing environmental conditions. Many complex living insects and animals have also been designed with instincts and intelligences that further allow them to regulate changing environmental conditions. Many insects and animals use their instincts and intelligence to choose their mates for fitness and compatibility, which is often called mate selection. For example symmetry is often instinctually viewed as attractive because it indicates greater fitness and a lack of defect. Mate selection preserves many of the beneficial communal and cooperative traits that could not be maintained by natural selection alone.

Individual organisms with defective or inoperable systems are naturally more likely to die before reproduction. Individual organisms with more optimized systems are naturally more likely to survive and reproduce. Each species has been designed to allow diverse variations of many different characteristics. The variations that are harmful to the individuals’ survival are naturally more likely to cause those individuals to become debilitated or die leaving fewer decedents. The variations that are beneficial to the individuals’ survival are naturally more likely to cause those individual to thrive and survive producing greater decedents. Therefore, the variations that are beneficial to the survival of the individuals from the parent generations are more likely to be the ones passed on and maintained in the individuals of all the decedent generations, which is natural selection. Natural selection does not determine which variations will be created, but rather only what variations will be maintained as the remnant. Natural selection does not design the best selections, but rather only selects from the best designs.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/65/the-war-against-truth

If the genetic material of a species strays too far from its original constitution, then it will die of a cancer, suffer other infirmities, or its natural lifespan will be shortened. Therefore, only minor genetic amendments can beneficial, but major genetic amendments are fatal. Minor genetic amendments produce minor variations which are then filtered out by mate selection and natural selection. Genetic amendments can be caused by genetic mutation, genetic infiltration, or genetic modification. Genetic mutation is when is when the genetic code sequence is slightly altered by radiation or pollution. Genetic infiltration is when an organism metabolizes an infectious food and genetic material from the food inserts itself into the genetic material of cells of the organism that metabolized it. Genetic modification is when an intelligent person reprograms a cell by inserting the new genetic material into an already living host cell. Genetic amendments usually provide more harm than benefit, but a few can provide minor variations within a species. These minor variations are then filtered through mate selection and natural selection allowing beneficial adjustments to changing environmental conditions.

Do you think that community and cooperation could still be sustained without mate selection? If a government passes amendments that alter the principles in its constitution, do you think those amendments will make the government more stable or less stable?

Degeneration is like a universe that expands at an accelerated rate and obeys the second law of thermodynamics. Natural selection is like the force of gravity, which counteracts the expansion and induces fusion in stars.

A complex system will never be designed naturally. A complex system that already exists can only naturally be adjusted, optimized, or maintained. A simple system will never naturally increase in order and complexity to become a more complex system. A complex system will naturally decrease in order and complexity to degenerate into a less complex system unless it is preserved through mate selection, natural selection, or an artificial selection. A system that is preserved through natural selection or mate selection will not increase in complexity, but rather only in compatibility with the environment and attraction principles. These are the core principles of the Theory of Degeneration.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/66/the-war-against-truth

When a species with eyes is relocated to region without light such as a dark cave, natural selection can no longer operate to preserve the function of the eye. Over generations the eye will degenerate until it no longer functions. This represents a decrease in order, not an increase in order and complexity.

When the members of a species become geographically isolated from each other, their reproductive systems will degenerate to the point where the reproductive systems become incompatible with each other. This represents a decrease in order, not an increase in order and complexity.

When bacteria are introduced to a seemingly new food source, some are able to adjust to metabolize a new food source. The bacteria were designed with the ability to adjust and metabolize a variety of diverse food sources. The bacterial utilize genetic amendments to adjust their pre-existing systems to metabolize the new food source. This represents the adjustment of a pre-existing system, not the creation of a new system.

When bacteria are introduced to a new toxin, some are able to adjust to survive the new toxin. The bacteria were designed with the ability to adjust and survive a variety of harsh conditions. The bacteria were designed to utilize genetic amendments to adjust their pre-existing systems to neutralize the new toxin. This represents the adjustment of a pre-existing system, not the creation of a new system.

When animals are introduced to a disease, some of the animals will be able to survive the disease. Animals are designed with the ability adjust and survive a variety of diseases. The immune system is a complex integrated design that allows an animal to adjust and regulate itself. When the immune system of an animal fights off a disease, this is the adjustment of a pre-existing system, not the creation of a new system.

The overall diversity of species is naturally decreasing in time, not naturally increasing in time. The natural extinction of species has always occurred chronically. The reintroduction of new species with complex integrated systems at a faster rate than the extinction of species can only be accomplished through artificial means.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/67/the-war-against-truth

If our universe obeys degeneration, what physical property of life would make it an exception? Is it easier to adjust and optimize an existing system or to design a new system?

Evolution is the religious doctrine of the naturalists. Evolution is the established official state religious doctrine. Evolution is using its state respected power to impede the progress of science through censorship of the Theory of Degeneration.

The Theory of Degeneration is superior to The Theory of Evolution in describing the evidence and making predictions. The Theory of Degeneration is superior to the Theory of Evolution in all areas of practical applications. The naturalist can give no legitimate reason why the Theory of Evolution should have a monopoly over public debate and instruction while the Theory of Degeneration should be censured. The only excuse that naturalists can give for exclusively teaching the Theory of Evolution is that “it is tradition”.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory of spontaneous progression. It asserts that a complex system can be designed itself naturally through a sequence of spontaneous events. It asserts that a simple system that already exists can naturally progress by itself to increase in order and complexity to become a more complex system. It asserts that the process of natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift are primarily responsible for designing all the complex integrated systems of life. These are the core principles of the Theory of Evolution that are distinct from the Theory of Degeneration.

The Theory of Evolution is false. Like all false propositions, its claims for justification can be refuted. Before the Theory of Evolution, the naturalists did not have any way to hide the fact that it is impossible for something to spontaneously increase in complexity until it naturally becomes something extremely complex. The probability for something extremely complex to be designed spontaneously is effectively zero. The probability for a million complex systems to be designed spontaneously is effectively zero.

Is there an inaccurate testable prediction that the “Theory of Degeneration” logically leads to? Is there an accurate testable prediction that the “Theory of Evolution” logically leads to that the “Theory of Degeneration” does not logically lead to?
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/68/the-war-against-truth

Evolution is like trying to build a skyscraper without an architect and without any scaffolding. Evolution is like stealing a million pennies one at a time instead of stealing ten thousand dollars all at once.

The Theory of Evolution did not even solve the problem, but rather it only masks and hides the problem. The naturalists have used censorship to hide the fact that the Theory of Evolution does not even solve the problem it claims to have solved; it didn’t give an alternative to systems being design spontaneously. According to the Theory of Evolution, every new system would still have to be designed spontaneously, one at a time instead of all at once. Natural selection would only maintain the best designs after they had already been designed, but they would still have to each be designed spontaneously. The probability for something extremely complex to be designed spontaneously is effectively zero. The probability for a million complex systems to be designed spontaneously one at a time is still effectively zero. Flip a million coins and have them all land on heads. What is the probability? Flip one coin a million times and have it land on heads every time. What is the probability? The Theory of Evolution allows the naturalist to confuse the people who do not understand it, and censure the people who understand it to be a lie.

In order for natural selection to sustain beneficial variations, a variation must give the life form a reproductive advantage. Natural selection only explains why designs that provide an immediate survival benefit would be sustained. Natural selection does not explain why system designs that do not provide any immediate survival benefits would be sustained. For example, a blind organism does not receive any survival benefit from an eye that does not function. Only once the eye was functional could natural selection sustain the most beneficial variations of the eye. Natural selection cannot explain how the organs and other complex system were sustained before they were fully functional. Before they were fully functional, these systems provide no survival benefit to the organism. Natural selection can only sustain an organ or complex system once it is already functional. Natural Selection cannot sustain an intermediary design a new system that is not yet functional.

Without the aid of natural selection, intermediary designs of systems that are not yet functional will naturally degenerate. All systems naturally tend to degenerate if they are not sustained by natural selection. For example, the eyes of animals in dark caves will degenerate until their descendants no longer have functional eyes. If even unused eyes will degenerate without natural selection, then the intermediary designs of eyes would also have degenerated before they even became functional in the first place. Natural selection is not responsible for sustaining the intermediary designs of systems that are not yet functional. Natural selection is not responsible designing intermediary designs of systems that are not yet functional. The Theory of Evolution implies that the intermediary designs would have to have been designed through spontaneous mutations. The probability of complex systems being designed through spontaneous mutations is essentially zero. The Theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of the different complex system designs of species. The Theory of Evolution merely hides the fact that naturalists are still saying that origin of the complex system designs of species is that they arose spontaneously, which has always been a mathematical impossibility even before the Theory of Evolution was fabricated.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/69/the-war-against-truth

Is it unlikely that a million complex systems would spontaneously design themselves all at once? Is it unlikely that a million complex systems would design themselves one at a time? Natural selection will allow optimized systems to be sustained once they have already been designed, does Evolution change the fact that the complex integrated systems still have the problem of designing themselves spontaneously?

A naturalist is like a child who looks on the faces of Mount Rushmore and marvels at how nature could carve something so intricate.

All of the complex integrated multilayered systems of life are evidence of an intelligent creator. No one sees a grand cathedral and genuinely doubts that there was an architect. The naturalists do not zealously censure the Theory of Degeneration because they genuinely believe there is a lack of evidence for it, but rather the naturalists censure the Theory of Degeneration because they zealously dislike the implications of the fact that there is an intelligent creator.

The reintroduction of new species at a faster rate than the extinction of species can only be accomplished through artificial means. The Theory of Degeneration requires that an intelligent creator is responsible for designing and catalyzing the development of new species. The intelligent creator designed life in a multi-phase process leading to the appearance of an organized nested hierarchical classification structure. During each phase, the intelligent creator may have designed new species models in a similar way that car designers might come out with new car models. During each phase, the intelligent creator may have created, copied, and modified templates leading to redundancies and similarities across different species. All of the evidence is consistent with a multi-phase design process that includes artificial selection and genetic modification.

The naturalists censure the fact that all of the evidence can be interrupted according to a Degeneration framework. Once the Degeneration framework is censured, the naturalist will misinterpret the evidence according to an Evolution Framework. The naturalists will then claim their misinterpretation of the evidence is evidence itself exclusively for Evolution. When new discoveries baffling the naturalist scientist, they fabricate new speculative assumptions and continue to misinterpret the evidence according to the Evolution Framework. The naturalists become more confident of Evolution even as the new evidence often conflicts with their predictions. The naturalists then speculate new assumptions to rationalize these conflicts according to the framework of Evolution. No amount of evidence could persuade a naturalist that Evolution is false. No amount of evidence could persuade a naturalist that the Theory of Degeneration should not be censured from public debate and instruction.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/70/the-war-against-truth

Can you learn about an author by reading his or her books even without seeing the authors? Can you learn about intelligent creator by studying the creation even without seeing the creator? Why do you think anyone would want to censure the Theory of Degeneration from public debate and instruction? Through what means do you think the knowledge can be censured?
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/71/the-war-against-truth