Diatoms refer to the unicellular organisms taken as another “proof” of evolution and mutation.
Even the atheist, anti-religious, reasonable and rational man can see absolutely clearly that evolution is a utterly fantastical piece of self –deception. It is beyond the slightest doubt that such a faith without a scintilla of evidence of any type must be rejected by everyone.
Yet, it is my claims that seem impossible. I must be mad even to question the great modern god – Charlie boy. We are all mesmerized into an acceptance of the ‘facts’ of evolution and mutation.
All the salesmen of evolution keep insisting that all is proven and the discussion is over, and surely mutation must be immaculate.
Questioning the Viability of Evolution
I dare to ask you to consider whether they have confused the brilliance and attractiveness of the concept with its viability. Its conception was indeed immaculate – literally ‘spotless’; Darwin’s plagiarism and observation were correct.
He noted the adaptations of which most life forms are perfectly capable when forced by particular environments. They are the parallel to dog breeding – by environment rather than enthusiasts.
But they may be seen in every case to be all well within the subject critter’s template. There is no change outside defined limits – just like in dogs.
Darwin’s Finches and Limits of Adaptation
His finches stayed finches. When the food resources changed again, their famous beaks followed suit as necessary.
Those with a specialised beak generally died out if that food disappeared – but of their offspring those which could manage to eat other foods survived and their slightly different beaks became the norm.
Of these those whose beaks were best suited to the new food became the new type. Further, remember they cheerfully mated with other ‘beak-species’ of finches when they had the opportunity.
And, the beaks began to adapt to different forms as soon as the only food available changed.
Breeding Examples: From Wolves to Chihuahuas
Wolves and other canines have been bred ultimately into Chihuahuas and Irish wolfhounds but never to a new ‘species’. With ‘back-breeding’ one can in fact superficially resurrect ancestral features through creative selection.
There is a project determined to re-create a politically-correct, cuddly ‘dire wolf’! They have reached a big-boned ‘American Alsatian’ with perfect manners and now are working on the skeletal structure which does resemble a dire wolf as far as we can tell.
But all this is engineered adaptation of the template.
The Failure to Find Beneficial Mutations
The evolutionists have noticed by now their dire failure. They have not one single example of beneficial mutation in 150 odd years.
Therefore, since mutations do seem just slightly impossible to find, they have been re-branded and redefined. New packaging can do wonders – they hope.
But the simple facts will not go away. You cannot rename adaptation and call it mutation – or at least you should not be able to.
Adaptation Within the Template
We all recognise that breeding emphasises selected features found within the template. If we search for a parallel in the wild we have innumerable excellent examples.
But all are adaptation using innate qualities the better to survive changing conditions.
Back to wolves: we know that one hundred generations in the Arctic will create a thicker-furred, sturdier and larger wolf because only those could survive. The slighter, thin-haired puppies froze – or their mummy did.
Obviously, eventually a new set of features are exaggerated from those within the wolf’s template.
Subspecies Variations and Geographic Separation
The same animal living in hot arid regions – the ‘Indian’ wolf – is slighter, has shorter fur in summer at least and several other adaptations. Different features are exaggerated, but it is precisely the same species.
Indeed, bring a few Arctic wolves to Asia and soon their offspring will eventually end up like the Indian wolf. Take some Indian wolves to Alaska, with hot water bottles, and those descendants that do not die from cold will survive because they have thicker fur etc.
They will end up pretty close to Arctic wolves. Now, take their own offspring back to India and, as well as rediscovering aananda or nirvana, they will adapt back into critters very much like Indian wolves.
And then? These are called ‘subspecies’ but in truth they are better described simply as variations within a species.
Indeed subspecies are simply described as types of a beastie that are geographically separated and therefore do not interbreed because of lack of opportunity. Thus idiosyncratic traits in that isolated group become exaggerated through a degree of interbreeding and those assisting survival become most pronounced.
Leopards, Lions, and Global Subspecies
Leopards, lions, rhino, elephants: you name it, they’ve done it. Scattered across the globe are the remnants of innumerable ‘subspecies’ that have in isolation adapted to local conditions.
They absolutely disprove mutation because if they have gone so far as to adapt to that degree, why have they not all gone a step further and changed into a new species even better adapted.
To say that they are doing precisely that but very slowly is again unintelligent because we must all now believe in rapid mutation. With all these millions of adapted subspecies in every corner of the world, not even one shows even a hint of mutation beyond its template.
The Diatomic Bomb
And one humble creature particularly has proved this absolutely. Make way for the Diatomic bomb. I am now going to expose the private lives of those whom most people regard as scum.
In polite society, they are known as diatoms. They are the green, orange and brown slimy stuff found in almost every still body of water – the single-celled algae, which form pond scum and plankton. And do not judge them by their slippery handshake. They are very honest.
They bear testimony against evolution and particularly mutation.
Diatoms: Disproving Mutation
Not only is the mutation of the diatom, wait for it, ‘a myth and all of its characteristics better explained by completely non-Darwinian, common-sense causes’ but diatoms actually really do disprove mutation.
Pretty good for something so small.
The Life Cycle of Diatoms
In its typical life cycle, the diatom does not simply go to kindergarten, school and university and then pick up a Ph.D. and a spouse. Diatoms are, unsurprisingly, simple souls.
Further, they are in essence extremely moral and modest. Indeed they not talk to ladies – nor even meet any – at first. They are real wall-flowers.
They have a plant-like – indeed wallflower – social life – during which all they do is stay at home and photosynthesise sunlight. When feeling genial, they pop and sprout a baby diatom like a plant does. This new cell forms by stealing a part of the parent cell. They both grow the relevant necessary replacement bits.
No arranged marriages; no acid house parties – not even face-book. Just imagine if humans replicated like that. There would have been no wars – no Helen of Troy; no religion – everyone’s creation would be immaculate; no music – no ‘Liebestote’; indeed forget art and literature, film, advertising – in fact everything that makes your world ‘worthwhile’; the mind boggles. Just thank Darwin that you are not a diatom.
However, Sin and the Serpent do manage eventually to corrupt diatoms – even as they corrupted weak Mankind. This is how it happens. A normal diatom cell replicates like a plant, as above, by growing an extension as it were – but importantly the replicate offspring is smaller than the parent.
After some generations, this smaller size affects too large a proportion of the population and further division becomes untenable. The smaller cells eventually cannot re-divide themselves. They then exhibit something with a very clever-sounding name – ‘meiosis’. Clever – until you realise that it is just plain Greek for ‘became smaller’.
Meiosis suddenly changes the innocent and immaculate world of the diatoms. And it is meiosis that stops diatoms from staying single and remaining celibate priests or nuns. For post-meiosis replication is innocent no more – it involves little boys and little girls.
The Auxospore and Cycle Restart
The diatom, like many simple organisms, changes its method of reproduction from, as previously, a ‘vegetative’ system to a quasi-‘animal’ method. In essence, two diatoms, too small to sub-divide individually themselves, meet and decide to get married. One becomes a Daddy diatom and one a Mummy diatom. (No, I do not know if they share the housework.)
These two post-meiosis diatoms settle down together and have a baby. It is a very big and demanding child. It is a brand new sort of super-cell – the auxospore.
This fat, overweight infant is the start of a whole new cycle. It sits around contemplating life (and perhaps its name which simply means ‘big baby’ in posh). Then it does something quite wonderful. It also goes pop and produces a novel initial cell – Diatom Reborn – somewhat like great-grandpa, the old original cell with which we started.
This cell is of the old larger size and it starts off a new similar vegetative life cycle again.
Built-In Changes in Diatoms
But, essentially for our argument, as we shall see below, the Diatom Reborn which was produced from the auxospore – is slightly different from its great grandpapa. There is a random – non-environmentally affected – change.
And this slightly-different ‘type’ of diatom proceeds to replicate its slightly-different self by dividing and sprouting new slightly-different cells, as before just like a plant until its strange departure into the murky world of animal replication occurs. And so the cycle continues.
Diatom Reborn continues to replicate as if it were a plant until the size of the new little Diatoms Reborn are too small to cope. Then they again pair up and marry and have an auxospore. This new super-cell again pops. It produces Diatom Reborn Mark 2.
This continues until you have eventually one very slimy pond. But it now filled with slightly different cells from the old generations. And vitally, these generations differ from each earlier generation most emphatically because of – and most emphatically only because of – most emphatically the inbuilt nature of this life cycle.
This is most emphatically not because of environment. It is most emphatically the opposite of mutation. But neither you nor anyone else will believe this. Now, again, you can understand idol worship and how people believe in politicians and think Charlie Darwin is a saintly, noble benefactor to mankind – against all reason or proof.
Natural Change Without Environmental Pressure
The diatom’s cycle has built into it as a default these greater and greater differences from its ancestors. Yes, the environment will also effect which diatoms survive and which die out – but that is irrelevant.
However for minds blinded by Darwinism, it is taken for granted that the diatoms had to change to survive. Yet this itself is supposition. Their conditions simply do not change but they do over the generations.
Who invented the myth that conditions were different? Why say diatoms would change if conditions had altered? Why say they changed to survive? Who said these changes in any way better-fitted warmer conditions?
Billions of diatoms exist in enormously different forms in every variety of conditions ranging from the Arctic to Equatorial. Their forms do not have any pattern indicating any response to the conditions. No blubber, no fur coats, no cooling systems, no air conditioning.
Inbuilt Mutation in Diatom Life Cycle
As our little discussion of diatomic life has revealed, the unmentionable omitted fact is that a detailed examination shows clearly that diatoms naturally change their form slightly each time they become auxospores. The initial cell which results from the auxospore ‘may differ from the normal vegetative cell in girdle structure, valve outline and process pattern.’
These changes occurring a few thousand times will result in a very different diatom.
Note extremely carefully that this change is the natural way diatoms do things and is not the result of any need to mutate. This is a very important and non-trivial point.
Automatic Change Without Survival Pressure
The very fact that they do this shows a clear example of a phylum (group of species) that has an inbuilt system of constant change that eventually creates barriers to mutual inter-breeding. The inability to interbreed is usually cited as part of the definition of a new species.
But here, a process of automatic ‘mutation’ is built into the life cycle of diatoms even though they are quietly living in an unchanging environment. They are not responding to external forces. It is not at all only the ‘fittest’ that are surviving and replicating.
Again, vitally, there is simply no adaptive duress to force this ‘mutation’.
This ‘mutation’ is not mutation in Darwin’s sense. After all ‘mutare’ simply meant ‘to change’ to a dusty old Latin. The diatoms are still diatoms. The metamorphosis of mosquitoes from eggs to larva to pupa to a tiny sweet little new mosquito is certainly mutation – but also not in Darwin’s sense.
Diatoms Disprove Darwinian Mutation
This single fact, fully researched by the evolutionists themselves, actually disproves mutation and evolution. Note carefully that these diatoms change for no reason and have ‘mutation’ built in ‘superfluously’, with no evolutionary incentive. Yes, this is getting boring.
From Antarctica to Equator, bore samples from single locations show gradual changes in features over generations of auxospore transitions with no ‘survival of the fittest’ improvement or necessity for change. The bore samples very often indicate no change in environment. This is just how these guys do it.
This breaks several Darwinian laws centred on no mutation without cause, mutation being beneficial and mutation being guided by the survival of the fittest.
Why Diatoms Do Not Prove Evolution
However, many evolutionists speak of pond scum ‘mutating’. They insist that diatoms are an example of mutation because we find that ancient extinct varieties have been replaced by different modern ones. However in truth, they are emphatically disproving evolution. You will now be able to explain why this is.
We all know that the ancient type is ‘extinct’ because generation by generation, that line itself has long changed from that ancient form through the natural default ‘autospore syndrome’ I have described. It did not change because conditions made it do so. This was not mutation at all.
Even if varied and random conditions affected it they certainly did not cause its change or demise.
Bore Samples and Generational Change
If you drive a borehole down into the earth you will find a mass of diatoms – with the oldest ‘extinct’ ones at the bottom and today’s at the top. As you move up the bore samples they indeed change – and again you all know why. Thousands of autospore transitions.
At the surface you find those called today – Lower Eastside Lesser Spotted Diatoms or something. Yes, these had ancient ‘ancestors’ deep below called ancient relatives of the Lower Eastside Lesser Spotted Diatoms or something.
But these absolutely did not mutate from the type at the bottom of the bore to those at the surface because of conditions or anything other than the diatoms’ own mutative life cycle in that closed system. Experts on diatoms say this emphatically. But, the diatom is quoted as an example proving mutation. This astonishes me. It disproves it.
You know this; I know this; but do not tell anyone. They will think you are religious.
Rejecting Evolution Without Religious Bias
And please note carefully, that you do not have to have the slightest sympathy with faiths or indeed be viciously anti-religious and still utterly reject evolution.
It is a very pretty idea but without any basis on earth or indeed Middle-earth, Earth-Sea, Mid-earth, Urth, Neverneverland, Wonderland – you name it, they have not found it.
Leave a Reply