What does Mickey Mouse have to do with evolution? Well, we’re really talking about the Rock Pocket Mouse, and its evolution. Something on which the cartoon might be probably based on.
Now, we all know that Darwinists admire the elite, cruel bully. The fittest deserve to come out top.
Darwin Warns His Worshippers
If they condescend to help the weak then, as we have quoted elsewhere on this site and in my books – from his Nazi tract – The Descent of Man (1870) Darwin warns his worshippers.
‘With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. … Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind.’
You would expect a few Brownie points to humanity for doing this.
Oh, no.
St Charlie thinks we are crazy.
Had he had the delight of living in the evil regime he so encouraged, he would have clapped his heels together and shouted ‘Nicht im Dritten Reich’. (‘Not in the third Reich’)
No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.
And the final sentence is quite astonishing:
‘It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed’
Are we not stupid, through care wrongly directed, to allow the degeneration of a domestic race?
Surely hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed’?
The Worst Animals
The worst animals are you, me and all those you know – whom are not the whitest, wealthiest or top-pedigree Caucasian elite.
What a delight to know that Muslims will soon certainly run Europe.
Within a very short time, historically, in demographic terms, Caucasians as discussed elsewhere will have 1 child to 4 adults.
Religious Muslims will have 4 children to 1.
You know I just wish we could resurrect the evolutionists’ messiah and let him gaze upon the destruction of his evil world.
As long as they could be guaranteed to be returned to their ever-lasting BBQ, perhaps a few of the Germans of 1940 – 45 could also be invited.
Let them see their abject failure.
It is about 80 years since the Nazi flag became a treasured keepsake for a very large number of silent post-war admirers.
It is worth noting that full regimental flags cost $25,000!!
That is one flag to cover each 3000 humans killed in the war the Germans created.
Now what of the same period in the future?
In 80 years’ time, over one third of Germans will be Muslims.
They will not have any flags – just democratic control.
Darwin Was Pathetically Wrong
But Darwin was not just wrong about all his favorite Nazi views, he was pathetically wrong about almost everything he observed and pompously wrote about.
And faithfully, his worshippers imitate him with hilarious faith.
They observe, ask how this can be somehow fitted into Charlie’s nonsense and then earn billions doing research on this and trillions building museums and university departments.
The Rock Pocket Mouse Disproves Evolution
Consider a very small mouse that has made Mickey Mouses (Mice?) out of evolutionists.
It is the incredibly bullied, poor little Rock Pocket Mouse, and this brave creature disproves mutation quite clearly. But because it is so small and helpless, it has been forced to give false witness in favor of the god.
We are assured that Rock Pocket mice have been snuffling around for as long as man has.
For some reason however they were suddenly noticed in 2003.
The story is precisely that of the lizards, guppies, pepper moths, fruit flies and other ridiculous examples.
I actually deeply understand the interest because I am rather fond of mice.
I had a pet one as a boy – until I realised that this would involve cleaning its cage, taking it on walks in the park and training it to retrieve sticks etc.
But perhaps my memory is confused.
The Rock Pocket Mouse And Rapid Mutation
The very sweet Rock Pocket mice are just about 3 inches long and skip about the desert rocks in southwest USA.
They have a simple life, living within desert areas.
Unfortunately this simple life includes birds of prey – mainly owls.
Their only defence is to dive into the nearest crevice or burrow or rely on the camouflage their colour provides as they are a sandy colour.
It was soon noticed (by zoologists and owls) that those on very dark basalt lava flows were not sandy.
They were all dark – like the rocks beneath them.
This set the mutationist mind thinking.
Uh – The two populations – uh – blonds and brunettes – uh – lived separately on their – uh – respective dark or light rocks.
Now being zoologists and not owls they soon saw how this, like everything in the universe – proved evolution.
And, bingo, this was not just mutation; this was rapid mutation!
These guys changed their hair pigment as easily as having a colour rinse.
Further, not only had these mice ‘mutated’ to fit in to their environment but also the DNA within each colour group had actually ‘mutated’ to reflect this.
Sure, and mice fly.
But, of course, hey presto, some brilliant research proved this so.
The melanocortin-1 receptor gene responsible for pigment was different in each population.
Even more amazingly, different isolated populations on different ‘islands’ of dark rock and light sand had independently gone to the local salon to change their DNA.
Rock Pocket Mice and Convergent Mutation Scam
Unfortunately their Mexican cousins across the border did not show the same DNA results at all.
But that little problem was brushed aside by saying it was ‘convergent’ mutation.
This imaginary genie is a useful magical cure often shaken out of its bottle when evolutionists are in a tight spot.
Two or more species exhibit a similar useful trait, for example flight in birds, bats and insects.
They must have evolved.
Right?
They all fly.
Right?
They did not mutate their pre-wing limbs into wings similarly.
Right?
So they must have gone to different plastic surgeons for the same sort of job.
Right?
They all decided independently to solve their problems with a parallel mutation.
Thus the Mexican Rock Pocket mice had simply used a different means, agreed to by the drug cartels, to achieve the same colour changing result(!)
Thus we have it all – mass, rapid, multiple and ‘convergent’ mutation!
Now had I been a mouse, I would be mighty impressed.
But, I needed to have a few questions answered by the researchers.
What Do The Rock Pocket Mouse Prove That Is “Evolution”?
The colour-changing thingy (agouti signalling peptide) indeed makes the mouse’s pigment change from dark to light by forcing the melanocortin-1 receptor gene itself to change.
The gene is auto-set to change, was auto-set to change and will always be auto-set to change – as below.
This how the thing works in all creatures – great and small.
Conversely, when this peptide is not active and the ‘default’ thingy – melanocyte-stimulating hormone – is dominant – the gene does not ‘mutate’ and the hair grows its default dark brown or black.
This happens in almost every mammal exhibiting colour of skin or hair, including you.
That which prompts the (blond) agouti signalling peptide to become active remains a mystery.
It seems, in human populations, however perhaps to be a response to dietary needs and vitamin deficiencies.
This has been going on since the beginning of time.
It is not ‘mutation’ as in Darwin.
It is simply that a single gene is switched one way in light mice from its equivalent in dark mice.
Kill all the light mice and the resulting population – with the melanocyte-stimulating hormone – will have the dark characteristic.
Racial Diversity of Rock Pocket Mice
On sand, darker mice are visible and eaten.
On basalt, lighter mice are visible and eaten.
They meet and marry dark and light mice without apartheid.
However, they do not marry dead mice, and the number of easily-seen surviving mice in their locality will be very small.
Thus the survivors of the owls, who pair up will tend to be of the camouflage colour.
Generally, only favourably-coloured offspring will not be eaten.
The dark mice exhibit and pass on the ‘dark ordinary’ gene characteristic.
The light mice exhibit and pass on the peptide that forces a sandy colour.
If you move 1000 dark mice on to light sand and put up chicken wire to keep off the predators and evolutionists and isolate them from light mice – they do not change.
If you move 1000 light mice on to dark rock and put up chicken wire to keep off the predators and evolutionists and isolate them from dark mice – they do not change.
They have not had the guts to try the last suggestions.
I challenge them to try.
Get some chicken wire, dark mice and a hammer and nails.
How long can it take?
Unmolested the mice will not change; molested they will be eaten and only the other colour survive to breed.
Rock Pocket Mice Disprove Evolution: Just Survival of the Fittest
In other words, the mice are not ending up mutating.
They are ending up inside owls.
Only the camouflaged mice stay outside owls.
One of two gene ‘choices’ which have always been there within their DNA ensures the survival of the flittest.
The population is adapting to predation by the survival of those with the flipped or non-flipped gene.
Those owls are simply killing off the visible mice and this is no different from breeding by selection resulting in brindle Great Danes and sandy Great Danes.
Men select dogs and owls – mice.
We see this also in so-called micro-mutation just below.
So, we should not be surprised that the very examples put forward ‘proving’ rapid evolution, actually disprove it.
Together with Palau-an Man, Italian lizards and Rock Pocket mice, we must soberly conclude that rapid mutation is a derisory piece of fantasy – but can always be relied to keep the sinking ship of mutation afloat a little longer.
That dick-billed platypus … talk about magic!
Micro-Mutation – Also a Myth
Yes, the simple truth is that they have found not one single example of beneficial mutation at all in the larger organisms we see around us or in fossils.
The simple truth is that they cannot, indeed must not, admit this.
Yet, not one creature on the planet has the slightest degree of even a tendency in this area.
Thus, tragically let down by the lack of evidence in the visible world around them, the faithful have journeyed to another world.
The microscopic.
Certain changes were noted in micro-organisms – responding to their environment and especially in drug-resistant bacteria.
Here was a ray of hope for the pure of mind.
It must be mutation!
Thus, there has been an explosion of evolutionist research at the micro-biological level.
COVID 19 Micro Mutation Myth
We should mention COVID here – but it is irrelevant.
It is not a lifeform and so its development does not concern us.
If it mutated in an evolutionary manner – which it does not – then that may be interesting – but still not within our brief.
Diatoms, dealt with below, are a far better comparison and loudly cheer for the opposition to mutation.
Obviously COVID-19 has brought viruses and their mutation to the forefront of the public gaze.
First, one needs to know that viruses are not living organisms at all.
They are ‘any of various submicroscopic agents that infect living organisms, often causing disease, and that consist of a single or double strand of RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat.
Unable to replicate without a host cell, viruses are typically not considered living organisms.’
So their lifestyle, political opinions and private lives are not relevant to the search for ‘mutation’ with respect to the evolution of life.
But in the final analysis, virus mutation within their replication process absolutely disproves ‘mutation’ as used in evolutionary terms.
The word mutation is employed very differently in the two contexts.
What Does Virus “Mutation” Prove?
Further, just because viruses are seen to ‘mutate’ – as in replicate in an inappropriate and novel way so as to produce a ‘new’ pattern or code within their structure – does not mean that mutation is proved to have happened in evolutionary terms.
This must be in a living organism in a way that is beneficial and linked to similar earlier and later changes and leads to a novel form.
And please remember that it is puerile to claim that such changes in viruses or other non-organic material suggests Darwinian mutation is possible.
Virus mutation is rare and usually does nothing or compromises the virus.
If it is benign then all that occurs is the virus can continue to replicate in its changed – yes, mutated – form.
That form may respond differently to external factors – such as vaccines – but the virus remains a slightly altered form of itself.
Like the diatom or the whale or the mutationalist, it can never change from that template.
Further, the very immunisation programmes actually encourage the variants to multiply in the absence of competition from the old variants.
This explosion of population is often misleadingly used to ‘prove’ ‘mutation’.
Survival of The Fittest Viruses
This merely shows survival of the fittest.
We know all about that – unfortunately for us – Man has destroyed the planet.
But quintessentially the COVID virus is not mutating in response to external factors.
It is simply replicating incorrectly.
Also, it is no better at surviving in any ‘natural’ environment then its original form.
It merely can resist an entirely artificial attack by artificial vaccines.
Vitally for our argument, that virus has not moved to a superior or ‘different’ form whatsoever.
It changed randomly and became perhaps better at surviving vaccines.
But it does not continue in any sort of progression and when a random mis-matching occurs again – this may well be fatal or insignificant.
If evolutionary mutation, even in non-life forms, were a thing, then we should observe some sort of progression – cladal, intermittent, directionally-inappropriate – whichever weasel words you can invent – leading to tougher and smarter viruses – not merely randomly different ones.
At this stage, one enters into mindless semantic arguments about defining ‘better, ‘different’, ‘linked changes’, ‘replication’ ad absurdum.
Viruses change over their generations because during replication mis-pairings within them can occur.
Two non-matching parts bind and produce a new ‘code’.
This is not evolutionary mutation.
When this happens in living organisms the ultimate result is over-whelmingly non-beneficial.
Bacteria, The Best Bet For Darwin?
Particularly disease-causing bacteria seemed to be Darwinian in sympathy.
That is until you question them carefully.
The myth is perpetuated that bacteria ‘mutate’ and become resistant to antibiotics.
This is simply untrue.
Within the bacteria are numerous competing subgroups.
If a group vulnerable to the antibiotic is wiped out, the resistant groups explode in population.
New antibiotics wipe out other groups and the survivors explode in number.
Those that can adapt within their template and survive the drugs are the fittest.
They survive.
There certainly is change – but it is obviously not mutation as she is known to her friends or enemies.
It is obviously adaptation within the total population driven by survival of the fittest.
The very real danger of antibiotic immunity is simply the survival of those strains which have an inherent immunity and those strains multiplying.
Not one little bacterium has mutated.
The immune strains are not new mutations which did not exist twenty years ago.
They are also twenty years old – or whatever.
They are the descendants of old, tiny irrelevant strains that always historically survived our onslaughts but were insignificant in their survival, until the competition was wiped out by a new drug, to which they resistant and then they began to explode in population.
How Do Bacteria Resist Antibiotics?
This was emphatically proven by Esther and John Lederberg in 1952 when they found this.
Identical groups of various strains of bacteria were replicated.
Half were left untouched.
Of the others, different sets of the colonies were exposed to antibiotics and the surviving immune colonies noted.
They were exposed again and again survived the antibiotics.
The researchers presumed that mutation had occurred to allow some to survive.
However the Lederbergs then, amusingly, absolutely disproved the presumption of mutation.
They simply washed the original plate of untouched colonies with the same antibiotic and only the same type of presumably ‘mutated’ colonies survived.
Note, these, of course, had never been exposed to the antibiotics and thus had not ‘mutated’ in order to survive.
They were proven to be naturally immune without mutation.
So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin.
They did not mutate and evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.
Sickly Sickle Cells
One type of mutation does occur frequently throughout practically all life forms.
It is the fatal destruction of the template by cell mutation as in carcinomas and other diseases.
This is often misquoted or distorted into ‘beneficial’ mutation.
The favourite scam is sickle cell anaemia.
This is a disease with severe symptoms that would mean death by starvation in a hunter gatherer world.
Within the sufferer’s DNA, mutations occur transforming healthy cells into deadly sickle cells.
This causes blood-clotting, pain and weakness.
Carriers do not have the disease but can pass it on.
This in itself jeopardises their line’s survival in evolutionary terms.
At this stage the reports become bizarre.
The claim is that there is a powerful and wonderful ‘beneficial’ effect.
This is that sufferers and carriers are not susceptible to malaria.
The guy is dying of sickle cell anaemia or will pass it on to his children and you are congratulating him that if he were to be bitten by an infected mosquito, they would still die of sickle cell anaemia not malaria.
Mazel Tov!
Wow.
So, a mutation that makes you dysfunctional and threatens your offspring has a side effect which means you won’t be killed by malaria if you live long enough.
And do we find huge populations of people with this mutation surviving in malaria ridden areas?
Are they the fittest – surviving and grinning as they watch the funerals around them?
No way.
They are all long dead and do not reproduce.
And you call that a beneficial mutation?
Mutation schmutation.
Yes, I know, if we could capture that mutation and harness it we could immunise the world.
But that is irrelevant to our discussion.
Remember the Darwinians’ proofs often actually disprove their faith.
Leave a Reply