Élites Promote Evolution: a Conspiracy, Not a Theory

A little more than one century ago, the US philanthropist Carnegie funded scientific institutions on condition they promote Evolution. I obviously prefer his Swedish relatives that started the brewery for Carnegie Porter.

Epstein Files REVEALED: Why was he pushing evolution?
LSNTV | 13 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j9U9I25ysY

5:33 One harmonious system.

On the astronomic scale too? With Geocentrism, the answer is yes.

6:29 "first time"

No. Julien Offray de La Mettrie was an Atheist, while Jean Le Rond d'Alembert and Denis Diderot gravitated into that direction.

How come this was possible in the 18th C. while it was clearly absent from the 13th?

Heliocentrism.

12:09 About the frequency of mutations and the time it takes for one to take over an entire population too.

So far, you are underestimating the impossibility of "big picture evolution" (like more radical than pepper moths or hedgehogs diversifying into species and even genera).

You haven't mentioned that some functions require more than one gene.

My favourite example since a few years ago is the retina of ... not sure if it was Astyanax Jordani or some blind cichlid, I think a cave in Mexico was mentioned, indicating as I look up the former, and then blind cichlids (indicating Congo river, other side of the Atlantic) could be a false memory.

Either way, the blind fish in question has ten genes for retina development. Two of them are damaged with a mutation or two. When coupled with relatives of non-blind populations, the hybrid isn't blind, the mutations are recessive.

So, ten genes, and getting only two things wrong on two of them is enough to make the retina non-functional.

However, this cannot be what St. Paul talked about, since genes and these blind fish have not been studied since the beginning of creation. Day and night, summer and winter, new moon and full moon have.

14:21 This case is not from biology, but from linguistics.

Human language functions on certain bases.

The logical bases involve:

• concepts can be named for themselves, not just as part of a pragmatic signal ("food" doesn't mean "let's eat" and "lion" doesn't mean "lion danger, lets climb the trees")
• they can be named in different types of absence : past, future, hidden, far, negated, conditional.

But the thing that makes this possible is:

• sentences are broken down into concept signals, known technically as morphemes (usually words, but also endings, prefixes and a few more), neither or none of which denotes a complete sentence ("let us eat some food" has five parts, and none of them gives the pragmatic signal by itself)
• morphemes are broken down into non-signals that only code for difference ("eat" and "ease" differ by T from Z sounds, neither of which has any meaning).

The corresponding things in "monkey talk" are:

• usually one signal per "concept"
• and that signal either one sound or a regular back and forth, but not a direction specific sequence of different sounds
• usually only pragmatic and emotic "concepts" ("I'm worried you look sad" or "lion danger, let's climb the trees" are two concepts, while "sad" and "trees" aren't)

These are linked. With very limited capacity to differentiate signals, you don't have the room for discussions about interesting topics, you just have the room for pragmatics and emotics, the equivalent of languages entirely in traffic signs and emoticons, no rebus involved.

So, how would the latter change into the former? Increasing vocabulary by subdividing such concepts by sound sequences would be pointless, if each "word" is an entire signal and learning one means to learn how to respond to yet another type situation. But increasing sentences by subdivision into theoretic concepts, into topics, would be impossible if the "vocabulary" remained as limited.

Even more.

• chimpanzees cannot hear consonants (outer ear too thick)
• chimpanzees cannot pronounce pure vowels (hyoid tied to air bags for distortion and amplification)
• chimpanzees, by absence of Broca's and Wernicke's areas and a human version of the FOXP-2 gene cannot learn vocabulary, properly. Or vocabulary and sentence structure.

In the pretended line from "Ramapithecus" (ancestral to chimps and men, according to evolution) to us, there are only three categories of skeleta:

• all of above traits (when found) human (even if Homo erectus had somewhat thicker ears, and might not have heard T, but could have heard CH or K, which are less shrill)
• none of above traits (when found) human (Australopithecus, for instance)
• the skull is too damaged to tell.

14:33 Darwin neither knew the genes of a retina, nor the working of human language.

16:20 I second Franklin M. Harold, adding Human language and cosmic Geocentrism to it.