It must be difficult to be a scientist who is forced to remain within set parameters while knowing full well that within these parameters, a surprising number of species that exist on earth including man, quite simply have no business actually being here at all.

In order to help deal with this dilemma, when new theories are presented within Academia, the new information is assessed, discussed, criticised, moulded, remoulded and even remoulded yet again if necessary until the new data can be fitted comfortably into the current paradigm in any particular field, be it archaeology, palaeontology, biology – whatever.

As we have previously discussed, this process is necessary in order to make the information conform as closely as possible to every leading, and obviously concerned, scientist's current way of thinking. To present a theory in any other way within Academia is simply inviting immediate rejection under a barrage of scathing criticism.

This authoritarian system of excruciating "peer review" has always been an effective way of keeping independent thinkers among the orthodox science community out of the public information loop. However, in spite of this vast ‘information filtering system’ that is in place, it is becoming increasingly clear that Darwin’s theory will soon become as obsolete as the notion that the earth is flat and the stars revolve around us despite the constant attempts by academia to keep the flailing theory’s nose above the fast rising waters of contrary evidence.

Author Lloyd Pye wrote an extremely informative and very well researched book on this topic that I highly recommend reading entitled ‘Human Origins’ where he aptly demonstrates the enormous difference between Primates and Humans. Naturally the work received some scathing criticism from the science community despite its meticulous research and abundant evidence. Such constant attacks are becoming tiresome these days but can also be useful in some ways, because knowing how intent Academia at large is in suppressing information, you usually find such criticism from them a good reason to read, what is more often than not, a highly informative paper. Otherwise it wouldn’t have ruffled so many academic feathers.

But the fact that there are fatal flaws in Darwin’s theory is now evident and much to their annoyance, it has even been scientifically proven by Academia itself due to recent, quite major advancements that have been made in various fields, such as the discovery, mapping and study of DNA. The information is also quite well known within science community itself, though they just seem to make a point not to actually inform the public. The information emerged as yet another somewhat rude shock for science, about 1980 and further confounded the devotees of Darwinian thinking.

You see, Palaeontologists, through the study of bones, had discovered that, (if it actually happened,) the split in the evolutionary chain when primates evolved into man must have occurred sometime between 5 million and 8 million years ago. Then, armed with this information a group of Geneticists in 1980 decided to attempt to narrow that date down to discover a more accurate timeline. The Geneticists believed that this wide bracket of 3 million years could be narrowed dramatically by charting mutations in DNA and so they began gathering DNA samples from around the world to use in their subsequent experiments.

A controversy then erupted when the results for these tests came in and the information was deemed so shocking that the tests were run again, in fact several times over because what they showed was that genetically, man was in fact, no more than 200,000 years old. Naturally the roar of protests from Anthropologists was unprecedented. However, subsequent testing has now proved beyond any doubt that the geneticists were absolutely correct, and there are other things too. Lloyd Pye covers these topics quite extensively in ‘Human Origins’ and again, I highly recommend reading it. For example a popular statistic that is presented to us to back up evolution is the fact that the DNA of humans differs from chimpanzee DNA by as little as 1% and from gorillas by only 2%. This makes it appear to those who are uneducated in the science of genetics, that evolution is quite obviously correct and humans and primates are virtually cousins.

However, what they never seem to mention is that the human DNA tree has three billion base pairs and so 1% of this is in fact, 30 million base pairs. Now, 30 million base pairs is, in reality, a tremendous amount of difference between the two species by any measure. And of course with Gorillas, that would be 60 million base pairs. Primates also suffer from very few genetic disorders apart from perhaps Albinism, which is a gene common in a variety of animals groups, including humans. By way of comparison, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders; several that will most definitely kill absolutely every victim! So, are we asked to believe that these disorders manifested in our evolution to a ‘higher and more improved species’? One of the most undeniable and obvious differences of all between the species can also be found in the fact that primates have 48 chromosomes yet humans, who are considered to be vastly superior to them in the evolutionary chain have only 46 chromosomes! So, how in the world could we just lose two full chromosomes in this ‘evolutionary improvement process’ we are supposed to have undergone? Two full chromosomes is an awful lot of DNA to just disappear!

Primates are also much stronger than humans, in fact on a pound for pound ratio, about 5 to ten times stronger, even small monkeys. If we really evolved from primates then apart from losing chromosomes, how did we also become so puny and weak compared to our ‘ancestors’ in this ‘improvement process?’ When analysed, nothing about evolution makes any logical sense at all really.