But Darwin seems to say as well, that man has evolved over fifty million years…so change is slow. According to Darwin, man didn’t just “show-up!” one day in the Garden of Eden and wait for Eve to bring the noon meal. I make this point once again and will make it often that Darwin believed that man began, “as matter, lurking in a warm pool of salt water.”
If we can embrace Darwin, then there are all kinds of hope for the Transitional man in the theory of Lang Elliott. The proof will be in the telling, and in the main it will undo years of yarns and hours of agony. Of course Charles Darwin submitted the following statement, “I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most scientist entertain, and which I formerly entertained namely…that each species has been independently created, I now believe to be erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable (not changing or alterable); but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. He went on to say, furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but, not the exclusive means of modification."
All of that is unimportant to the theory of Lang Elliott, it simply means Darwin has come to a position that each species has not been independently created but have depended upon species of the same genera, as descendants of that species for the continuation of life into the next determination of the survival of the fittest. And we all know the human being is far less prepared to cope with life beyond the womb, or so it is presupposed. The consensus is that the average fetus is unable to survive outside the womb without the constant nourishment and protection of something or someone. So what comes first, the chicken or the egg? At some point in the natural selection process, the human was exposed, and took nourishment from another mammal. Lang Elliott believed, from experience on his thoroughbred farm that a foal could be fed by any other nursing creature, whether it be mare, donkey or cow, so long as there was a tit and milk coming from it.
Michael Behe had this to say in his book, “Darwin’s Black Box,” in which he challenged Darwin’s theory of evolution, claiming we can understand how something works but not necessarily how it came to be. He also claimed evolution means different things to different people and that the cell is no longer the mysterious black box that it was for Darwin. Behe claimed the complex structure of the cell depends on far too many interconnected parts to have been built up gradually, step by tiny step, over time.
Science journalist Richard Milton also challenged Darwin’s theory. Milton claimed there are “missing links,” in every evolutionary line, human and otherwise. He claimed as well that even if the evolutionary process occurred over the course of 3.8 billion years, which would not be long enough for complex life to evolve from a single celled organism. He concluded that to believe Darwin requires more of an act of faith than does a functioning science. It is good to remember that Milton is not a scientist but a science journalist.
Finally, the National Academy of Science, claimed that “evolution must be a vital part of science instruction, and lessons on creationism do not belong in the science classroom.” The Academy also said, “Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by evidence.” In spite of favorable court decisions, the organization is concerned over widespread misunderstandings about evolution which is manifested in teachers who are reluctant to teach the theory in classrooms today. There is little wonder that there is a misunderstanding because it has become the habit of certain organizations who make it their practice to conjure words and phrases which confuse the ordinary mind, for an example, the use of the word “choice” when speaking of abortion. The use of this word by proponents of abortion is intended to soften the impact of killing a fetus.
Welby Thomas Cox, Jr. (Editor)
I. The Breeding Season Produces a Bumper Crop
The principal goal of all owners of a thoroughbred mare is to produce a healthy straight-legged foal in January. The reason for this definitive planning is that the mare, who has been proven to have “taken” and declared positively pregnant by the Vet now has a gestation period of from 335-350 days or eleven months from fertilization. And the all-important fact is that the foal must be delivered on or after the first day of January. This is essential because a thoroughbred baby becomes a year old on each January first. Therefore, it would be catastrophic for the mother of a new foal to deliver in mid-December…equally poor planning to produce a foal in May which would place the baby at a decided disadvantage in an industry economically predisposed to placing the babies into service at the race-track in March of their two-year-old season. It is highly unusual for a horse campaigning as a three-year-old to be mature enough to compete with horses which are six-months older. But it has been done, in fact the Hall of Fame trainer Wayne Lucas ran a horse in the Kentucky Derby who was a May foal and that horse, Charismatic won the Derby after Lucas and the owner had run the horse in a claiming race for sixty thousand dollars.
As you can very well see there is a window of opportunity here of only a mere fifteen days, and the likelihood that the mare covered by the stallion, will not “take,” requiring another mating session in 18-21 days. If the mare had the facilities of a female Praying Mantis, she could eliminate the issue by killing the stallion, after which she could use him sexually for the express purpose of fertilization, and then she could eat him, (No Pun Intended.)
You might ask, “How would that help?” There is no scientific idea, except for the Theory of Relativity, which has been the source of as much misunderstanding as Natural Selection. Much of the confusion relating to Darwin’s ideas originates in the graphic phrase, “survival of the fittest.” This was in point of fact, which Darwin noted, not his invention but that of his contemporary, the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Evidently, Darwin felt that Spencer’s phrase captured the essence of his theory, because he borrowed it from Spencer and inserted it into the Origin of the Species at several points. Because of this choice there followed much mischief, for when the question is asked, “In the phrase, survival of the fittest, who are the fittest?” The answer comes back, “Those who survive!” Thus the central concept in Natural Selection is revealed to be, “the survival of those who survive.” The theory is thus reduced to a meaningless tautology, a needless repetition of the same sense in different words.
Or, so it would seem. But this reading of Darwin is based on a misunderstanding of his ideas. In the theory of Natural Selection, fitness has a very special meaning: a fit individual is not merely one who survives, but one who also produces an offspring. Darwinian fitness means reproductive success. A person may have great physical strength, nobility of character, and brilliance of intellect, but if he or she produces no offspring, that person’s fitness is zero.
In the case of Henry VIII, this demand for reproductive fitness is exacerbated by his demand that his queen not only reproduce but deliver a male heir to take the throne. After many years of effort with his first wife Catherine, and their failure to conceive a son, Henry used all his powers with the pope to bring about a dissolution of the marriage to permit a second marriage to Anne of Boleyn, the King is forced to start a new religion in order to dispose of Anne, when she too failed to deliver a male heir to the throne. Certainly, it is known that Anne was Henry’s intellectual equal but in Henry’s historical determination to produce a male heir to the throne as King of England and Anne’s failure to produce a son, her fitness to be Queen of England was obviated. We know Anne refused to go gently and Henry is forced to take dire measures, introducing once again the Mantis theory, except in this case he beheads Anne and neither eats her or has sex with her.
The distinction is made clear by the Praying Mantis. Once the male Mantis has fertilized the eggs the female begins to eat him. Not at the genitals, as a means of resurrecting a flaccid penis, but she starts with his head. Sometimes the male gets away, but most often, since he is in a euphoric state after sex…his brain is secreting a hormone which inhibits copulation; but, after the male has lost his head, he copulates more vigorously, (The World According to Gorp). These circumstances enhance the male’s reproductive success, contributing greatly to the survival of the species, but severely diminish his personal prospects for survival,