Tag: science

Genetic Aberrations

There is more evidence for aliens altering human DNA than there is for evolution by natural selection doing so. Which makes sense, since there is a possibility, however remote, that aliens have altered human DNA, and there is no possibility that evolution by natural selection took place.

An outlandish study asserts that aliens might have abducted us and inserted genes into human DNA, with the fallout affecting potentially millions of people.

“Humanity may be undergoing genetic transformation,” lead researcher Dr. Max Rempel, the founder and CEO of the DNA Resonance Research Foundation, told the Daily Mail of the study, which has yet to be peer-reviewed.

Rempel came to this far-fetched-seeming conclusion by analyzing DNA from both regular people and those who have claimed to have been abducted by aliens. This comes following a spike in UFO sightings over the last year, making many fear that we are on the verge of some not-so-friendly close encounters.

The scientist specifically analyzed 581 complete families from the 1,000 Genomes Project, discovering ‘large sequences’ of DNA in 11 families that didn’t appear to correspond to either family.

These genetic aberrations entailed a bundle of 348 non-parental genetic variants. As the subjects were born before 1990, this ruled out human gene-editing technologies like CRISPR, which only emerged in 2013.

It’s fascinating to see how quickly science is moving on from the theory of evolution by natural selection. Within 20 years, I expect scientists will be blithely asserting that scientists never really believed in evolution and that natural selection was never a relevant scientific concept.

It’s always astonishing to me how quickly the astonishingly outlandish ideas of the iconoclast become the obvious things that everyone always knew.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Foundation of Sand

Both Darwinism and Neo-Darwinian theory are dead, even if the scientists are still reluctant to openly admit it. But it’s a death that has been in the making for at least the last 30 years:

Richard Milton’s Shattering the Myths of Darwinism arrived in 1992 like a stone through the stained glass window of scientific orthodoxy. Here was a science journalist, not a creationist or religious fundamentalist, methodically documenting how the central theory of modern biology had become less a scientific framework than a kind of secular religion, complete with its own dogmas, heresies, and inquisitions. Milton discovered what anyone who dares to look closely at Darwin’s theory finds: that “survival of the fittest” is actually a meaningless tautology—those who survive are defined as fit because they survived—and that the entire edifice of evolutionary theory rests not on empirical evidence but on a series of circular arguments, unexamined assumptions, and what W.R. Thompson called “fragile towers of hypothesis on hypothesis.” The book wasn’t just another critique of evolution; it was an exposé of how science itself had been corrupted, transformed from a method of inquiry into an instrument of ideological enforcement.

The depth of Milton’s investigation reveals something far more troubling than mere scientific error. When he traces how radiometric dating actually works—or doesn’t—he uncovers a shell game where rocks are dated by the fossils they contain while fossils are dated by the rocks they’re found in, with neither discipline possessing any independent method of verification. When he examines the probability calculations for even a single protein forming by chance (1 in 10^65), he finds odds so astronomical that they’re equivalent to winning the lottery every week for a thousand years with the same numbers. When he looks for the transitional fossils that Darwin himself said must exist in countless numbers for his theory to be true, he finds instead what paleontologists call “the trade secret of paleontology”—they simply don’t exist. Every major group appears suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed, remains unchanged, then disappears without transforming into anything else. The Cambrian explosion alone, where nearly all animal phyla appeared simultaneously without precursors, should have ended the debate, but instead it’s been explained away through increasingly creative interpretations that preserve the theory at the expense of the evidence.

What Milton exposes, and what Liam Scheff so brilliantly articulated before his untimely death, is that Darwinism was never really a scientific theory at all—it was an anti-religion, born from Victorian intellectuals’ desperate need to escape the suffocating grip of church authority. As Scheff puts it, the entire project was about destroying the Christian “Yahweh-driven” model, replacing one kind of god with another they called “Nature,” which somehow “selects” the “fit” to “survive” through processes no one can actually define or measure. This ideological motivation explains why Darwinism survived despite its failures: it served a cultural and political purpose that had nothing to do with understanding how life actually works. The theory gave us eugenics and forced sterilizations—all conducted as medical and scientific projects in the name of helping the “fit” survive. When science becomes dogma, when questioning is forbidden, when careers are destroyed for publishing contradictory evidence, we’re no longer doing science; we’re enforcing a state religion. Milton documents case after case of scientific censorship, from Warwick Collins being blacklisted for questioning sexual selection to Forrest Mims losing his Scientific American column simply for admitting he didn’t believe in Darwinism.

The implications stretch far beyond academic debates about fossils and dating methods. Milton’s work, alongside voices like Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe, reveals that the entire materialist worldview of the twentieth century rests on a foundation of sand.

It was obvious from the time of the 1967 symposium held by the Wistar Institute that evolution was not a real science. Evolution has been effectively dead since Mendel, it’s just that we didn’t have the genetic science to comprehensively diprove it until quite recently.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Schools Aren’t Magic

Immigrants are proving literally uneducable(PDF) by the schools in the countries they have invaded:

In spite of the many criticisms to which PISA can and should be legitimately subjected, it is difficult to deny that this large and highly successful OECD project is a blessing for research in Comparative Education, as it provides strictly comparable data on inputs, processes and results for most educational systems in the world. The outcomes of analyzing these enormous data sets are rather disappointing for those who had expected from it quick and solid adjudications among rival theories. First the PISA reports, and then the many reanalyses carried out on the PISA data, have found only very weak relations between students’ outcomes and characteristics of educational systems which are usually thought of
paramount importance (Carabaña, 2008).

It is from these tenuous links that multilevel regressions extract cross-country coefficients that, when statistically significant, are quite hard to interpret even by the best willed officials and scholars. I will here address the question of the effects that schools in the destination countries have on the academic results of immigrant’s children. Immigration countries have generally better schools and better results than countries of emigration. It is therefore easy to imagine how the desire to improve the schooling conditions of their children might be one important pulling factor for emigrants. However, against all expectations of subjects and observers, immigrant students score in the PISA tests rather like students in their countries of origin than like native students in the countries of destination.

In spite of the allegedly better schools of the host countries, the learning of the newcomers remains at the level of their origin countries not only in the first generation, but also in the second and even later on.

This is because the differences across humanity are not merely “skin-deep”. The contents of one’s character do matter, but so too do the contents of one’s culture, and even more importantly, one’s genes. An 80-IQ Somali immigrant who attends a good public school in Minneapolis is still going to be an 80-IQ Somali after being given a piece of paper that declares he is educated. So too will his son, and his grandson, and his great-grandson.

This should be entirely obvious, as the British colonists did not gradually turn into American Indians after four generations in the New World. And the descendants of the African slaves imported into the Americas are still observably distinct in appearance, behavior, and educational outcome after many generations of education in the USA.

DISCUSS ON SG

It’s Not Getting Easier

New complications and additional evolutionary epicycles like these don’t prove the correctness of MITTENS, nor is there any need for them whatsoever, but they do tend to support its mathematical conclusions because the more complicated and convoluted the path, the more obviously impossible the mainstream neo-Darwinian explanations become.

A 1 million-year-old human skull suggests that the origins of modern humans may reach back far deeper in time than previously thought and raises the possibility that Homo sapiens first emerged outside of Africa.

Leading scientists reached this conclusion after reanalysis of a skull known as Yunxian 2 discovered in China and previously classified as belonging to a member of the primitive human species Homo erectus.

After applying sophisticated reconstruction techniques to the skull, scientists believe that it may instead belong to a group called Homo longi (dragon man), closely linked to the elusive Denisovans who lived alongside our own ancestors.

This repositioning would make the fossil the closest on record to the split between modern humans and our closest relatives, the Neanderthals and Denisovans, and would radically revise understanding of the last 1m years of human evolution.

Prof Chris Stringer, an anthropologist and research leader in human evolution at the Natural History Museum in London, said: “This changes a lot of thinking because it suggests that by 1m years ago our ancestors had already split into distinct groups, pointing to a much earlier and more complex human evolutionary split than previously believed. It more or less doubles the time of origin of Homo sapiens.”

The skull was first unearthed in Hubei province in 1990, badly crushed and difficult to interpret. Based on its age and some broad-brush traits, it was assigned as Homo erectus, a group that is thought to have contained direct ancestors of modern humans.

The latest work used advanced CT imaging, high-resolution surface scanning and sophisticated digital techniques to produce a virtual reconstruction of the skull. The skull’s large, squat brain case and jutting lower jaw are reminiscent of Homo erectus.

But the overall shape and size of the brain case and teeth appear to place it much closer to Homo longi, a species that scientists have recently argued should incorporate the Denisovans.

This would push the split between our own ancestors, Neanderthals and Homo longi back by at least 400,000 years and, according to Springer, raises the possibility that our common ancestor – and potentially the first Homo sapiens – lived in western Asia rather than Africa.

Just to be clear, there is absolutely no chance – zero – that the theory of evolution by natural selection can explain the genetic gap observed between modern humans, modern chimpanzees, and the theoretical Last Known Chimp Human Common Ancestor.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Vaxx’s 5X Kill Effect

A massive Japanese study has revealed some very informative details about the short- and medium-term effects of the vaxx.

Dr. Murakami’s conclusion was blunt: “…the more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die, within a shorter period…”

According to Dr. Murakami, there was no noticeable spike in deaths among the unvaccinated. But among the vaccinated, a clear peak emerged—especially between 90 and 120 days after the shot. “A significant peak forms at three or four months,” he said, pointing to the vaccine as the likely cause. “It’s probably due to the vaccine’s influence, with adverse reactions occurring leading to death.”

The first graph compared death rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

Then came a graph that was impossible to ignore. It showed a clear pattern: the more vaccine doses a person received, the sooner they died after their final shot. The title translates to: “Number of days from final vaccination to death and number of deaths.” The note on the right reads: “As the number of vaccine doses increases, the peak in deaths appears sooner.”

Each line represents people grouped by the final dose they received before death. In other words, those counted under the third dose curve had received three shots and died before receiving a fourth. What stood out most was the steep green spike representing deaths after the third dose. Not only was it the highest, but it also appeared earlier, around 90 to 120 days. The trend held across the board: as the number of doses increased, the peak of death consistently moved closer to the time of the last injection.

Now, the good news is that it appears that the death rates for the vaxxed return to normal after a period of 10 months after their last shot. It’s also clear that those who only ever received a single shot are considerably better off than those who received more, as their death rates returned to normal within just two months.

How then to account for the continued rise in deaths from rare turbo cancers, strokes, and heart attacks? Well, the death rates are still observably much higher than normal even 16 months after the fifth or sixth shot, so presumably these deaths are largely accounted for among the heavily boosted.

But this is much better news than I’d expected at this point, although it must be cautioned that the Japanese public did not receive exactly the same mRNA therapies that other nations did, so there is likely to be at least a modest amount of variance from one country to another. The point is that risks appear to be decreasing rather than increasing over time with regards to reductions in life expectancy.

This doesn’t mean we’re entirely out of the woods yet, however, as what I always considered to be the more insidious angle, the fertility angle, is showing some signs that the suppressive effect of the vaxx is lingering much longer. We’ll look at those adverse effects another time.

DISCUSS ON SG

Where Does China Stand

Peter Turchin turns his structural-demographic analytical eye on the rising 21st century power. But can he gather sufficient reliable data for the analysis?

As the American Empire continues to disintegrate from within, the most likely next hegemonic power is going to be China. The size of China’s economy has already exceeded that of the US (measured in PPP terms).

In other forms of social power, military and ideological/soft power, China still lags, but is gaining on America. For example, Chinese movie industry produced quite a number of world blockbusters, starting with the 2000 epic, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

I asked ChatGPT and DeepSeek, “If we consider a list of 100 world blockbuster movies in the last decade, what would be the breakdown in terms of countries producing them?” They gave similar answers. USA, of course, dominates, with >80% of world blockbusters, but China is the second, and fastest-growing, contender. ChatGPT estimated its influence as 5-8%, while DeepSeek (predictably) gave a higher estimate of 10-15%. In any case, China has a long way to go yet.

Whether China continues to gain, and eventually overtake America on these dimensions of power will depend a lot on its internal cohesion and stability. Thus, an empirically based and theoretically sound forecast is clearly needed.

On the other hand, it is not yet clear to me whether my team will be able to collect all the necessary data. We will find out.

It’s good to see more people are finally branching out from the obvious decline of the West and beginning to pay attention to the rest of the world.

DISCUSS ON SG

About That “Analytical Thinking”

A lot of people are going to be in for a very unpleasant surprise once the Narrative finally accepts that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection and various other epicycles is a complete and utter nonstarter:

According to thinktank Pew Research Center data from 2020, only 64% of Americans accept that “humans and other living things have evolved over time.” Meanwhile, 73% of Brits are fine with the idea that they share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That nine-percentage-point gap might not sound like much, but it represents millions of people who think Charles Darwin was peddling fake news.

From 1985 to 2010, Americans were in what researchers call a statistical dead heat between acceptance and rejection of evolution — which is academic speak for people couldn’t decide if we were descended from apes or Adam and Eve..

Here’s where things get psychologically fascinating. Research into misinformation and cognitive biases suggests that fundamentalism operates on a principle known as motivated reasoning. This means selectively interpreting evidence to reach predetermined conclusions. And a 2018 review of social and computer science research also found that fake news seems to spread because it confirms what people already want to believe.

Evolution denial may work the same way. Religious fundamentalism is what researchers call “the strongest predictor” for rejection of evolution. A 2019 study of 900 participants found that belief in fake news headlines was associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism and reduced analytic thinking.

High personal religiosity, as seen in the U.S., reinforced by communities of like-minded believers, can create resistance to evolutionary science. This pattern is pronounced among Southern Baptists — the largest Protestant denomination in the US — where 61% believe the Bible is the literal word of God, compared to 31% of Americans overall. The persistence of this conflict is fueled by organized creationist movements that reinforce religious skepticism.

Brain imaging studies show that people with fundamentalist beliefs seem to have reduced activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex — the brain region responsible for cognitive flexibility and analytical thinking. When this area is damaged or less active, people become more prone to accepting claims without sufficient evidence and show increased resistance to changing their beliefs when presented with contradictory information. Studies of brain-injured patients show damage to prefrontal networks that normally help us question information may lead to increased fundamentalist beliefs and reduced skepticism.

This is the midwit’s customary pseudo-scientific attempt to appeal to the nonexistent authority of SCIENCE, or rather, scientistry. Of course, as I demonstrated in copious detail on last night’s Darkstream, with the assistance of ChatGPI, there is absolutely no way evolutionary biologists can argue that all of the evolutionary mechanisms they can invent can even begin to account for human genetic diversity due to the material constraints on human reproduction that their models do not even begin to take into account.

The logistics of human reproduction and descent limit how fast any allele can spread, no matter how advantageous. Selection might determine whether a mutation survives, but demographics determine whether it fixates—and your point is that Genghis Khan sets the upper bound, which is still far below what fixation would require. Fixation in humans in <40 generations is, barring some extreme and hypothetical bottleneck, essentially impossible.

No wonder the scientists are all so terrified of artificial intelligence. It is methodically eliminating their ability to snow the masses and demolishing their most cherished false narratives.

DISCUSS ON SG

Why You Can’t Trust the Science

The problem isn’t just with the corrupt scientistry, but the mechanism that corrupted them. Namely, the science publishing industry:

It might seem like publishing is a detail. Something that happens at the end of the process, after the real work of science is done. But in truth, publishing defines science.

The currency of value in science has become journal articles. It’s how scientists share and evaluate their work. Funding and career advancement depend on it. This has added to science growing less rigorous, innovative, and impactful over time. This is not a side effect, a conspiracy, or a sudden crisis. It’s an insidious structural feature.

For non-scientists, here’s how journal-based publishing works:

After years of research, scientists submit a narrative of their results to a journal, chosen based on field relevance and prestige. Journals are ranked by “impact factor,” and publishing in high-impact journals can significantly boost careers, visibility, and funding prospects.

Journal submission timing is often dictated by when results yield a “publishable unit” — a well-known term for what meets a journal’s threshold for significance and coherence. Linear, progressive narratives are favored, even if that means reordering the actual chronology or omitting results that don’t fit. This isn’t fraud; it’s selective storytelling aimed at readability and clarity.

Once submitted, an editor either rejects the paper or sends it to a few anonymous peer reviewers — two or three scientists tasked with judging novelty, technical soundness, and importance. Not all reviews are high quality, and not all concerns are addressed before editorial acceptance. Reviews are usually kept private. Scientific disagreements — essential to progress — rarely play out in public view.

If rejected, the paper is re-submitted elsewhere. This loop generally takes 6–12 months or more. Journal submissions and associated data can circulate in private for over a year without contributing to public discussion. When articles are finally accepted for release, journals require an article processing fee that’s often even more expensive if the article is open access. These fees are typically paid for by taxpayer-funded grants or universities.

Several structural features make the system hard to reform:

  • Illusion of truth and finality: Publication is treated as a stamp of approval. Mistakes are rarely corrected. Retractions are stigmatized.
  • Artificial scarcity: Journals want to be first to publish, fueling secrecy and fear of being “scooped.” Also, author credit is distributed through rigid ordering, incentivizing competition over collaboration. In sum, prestige is then prioritized.
  • Insufficient review that doesn’t scale: Three editorially-selected reviewers (who may have conflicts-of-interest) constrain what can be evaluated, which is a growing problem as science becomes increasingly interdisciplinary and cutting edge. The review process is also too slow and manual to keep up with today’s volume of outputs.
  • Narrow formats: Journals often seek splashy, linear stories with novel mechanistic insights. A lot of useful stuff doesn’t make it into public view, e.g. null findings, methods, raw data, untested ideas, true underlying rationale.
  • Incomplete information: Key components of publications, such as data or code, often aren’t shared to allow full review, reuse, and replication. Journals don’t enforce this, even for publications from companies. Their role has become more akin to marketing.
  • Limited feedback loops: Articles and reviews don’t adapt as new data emerges. Reuse and real-world validation aren’t part of the evaluation loop. A single, shaky published result can derail an entire field for decades, as was the case for the Alzheimer’s scandal.

Stack all this together, and the outcome is predictable: a system that delays and warps the scientific process. It was built about a century ago for a different era. As is often the case with legacy systems, each improvement only further entrenches a principally flawed framework.

The system will not, and cannot, be restored in a post-Christian society. Science is not only not incompatible with religion, it is incompatible with irreligion, because no amount of information or technology is an adequate substitute for a collection of zero-trust, amoral, and faithless scientists. When the incentives are askew and the moral brakes are removed, it should not come as a surprise that professional peer-reviewed and published science is already less reliable than a simple coin toss.

Science is just another casualty of the subversion and inversion of Christendom. Which is why the elites have already rejected science and reason in favor of the idol-worshipping, demon-pandering paganism of the pre-Christian world.

DISCUSS ON SG

Trust WHAT Science?

Precisely how are we supposed to Trust The Science when there isn’t any science to trust?

RFK Jr was Right

2001, the Director of the FDA Office of Vaccine Research and Review, William Egan, admitted under oath Mercury (thimerosal) was never tested for Safety in human beings.

But sure… let’s inject millions of Americans with it

You flat-out cannot trust anything the Medical-Science complex asserts to be true. Nothing at all. While I’m certain there must occasionally be assertions that are both true and supported by genuine scientody, it’s absolutely impossible to distinguish between those assertions and those that are pure invention and inversion.

DISCUSS ON SG

Fake Space Program Winds Down

We’re supposed to be very concerned that the 60-year financial boondoggle called NASA is finally showing signs of coming to an end:

NASA had a good run. But it is clear after the Agency town hall today that NASA’s role as the global preeminent Space Agency is over. Despite a proposed 50% cut to the Science budget, agency leadership is inexplicably moving forward with the President’s budget request. This has already led to the cancellation of dozens of projects and Missions as well as the displacement of thousands of employees. There is no coherent long-term vision, no credible plan to achieve the priorities the agency claims to uphold under such drastic financial constraints, and no meaningful advocacy from leadership to push back against the cuts. The future of NASA’s scientific mission is being gutted in plain sight.

My guess is that they want to wind it down so they can claim it’s a) no big deal and b) ancient history once all of the fakery that was perpetrated by NASA and in its name begins to come out. So much of “modernity” is simply false that it will more than boggle even what passes for the average NPC’s mind.

DISCUSS ON SG