Truth News Australia

Hereward Fenton

LATEST SHOW
Climb aboard the ship of truth with Hereward Fenton at the helm, as we plough through uncharted waters of geo-politics, scandals, cover-ups, war and tyranny.

Charles Darwin debunked!

March 29, 2012, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

02 April 2012
0 Comments

By Hereward Fenton

Blind Watchmaker

Today's show contains 2 excellent interviews and audio clips from a recent anti-war protest held in Sydney.

In the first half of today’s show we bring you an interview with Chris Emery and Holland Van den Nieuwenhof discussing their stunning film A Noble Lie, which exposes the cover-up and government complicity in the 1995 Oklahoma bombing.

The second hour guest is Craig Isherwood, Secretary of the Citizens Electoral Council, a political party in Australia with links to Lyndon La Rouche. Craig presents an in depth critique of Darwinian evolution, and illustrates the connection between Darwin’s theory and the “oligarchical principle” which underlies the agendas of eugenics, the Nanny State and the environmental movement. Craig debunks claims that the planet faces a catastrophe as a result of Malthusian population growth and steps us through some alternative theories of macro evolution which posit a creative principle in the universe in contrast to the purely random “blind watch maker” idea which is prevalent in mainstream biology.

Related Links

Comments

Please review the Terms of Service before reading or responding to comments.

I enjoyed the conversation with Craig Isherwood re Darwinian evolution. I’ve studied biology, ecology and geography up to third year at Tas Uni, including, obviously, Darwin’s theory on the origin of species by natural selection.

It seems clear to me that Darwin’s theory was very much influenced by the social and cultural perspectives of his time, which were likewise reflected in the writings of his contemporaries, such as Malthus.

It is also clear to me that evolution is not so much the product of competition between species over limited resources, but rather the opposite, the proliferation and diversification of lifeforms against a backdrop of abundance.

The fossil record supports the idea that evolution proceeds in rapid burst, interspersed with long periods of relative stasis, a concept known as “punctuated equilibrium”.

The primary driver behind evolution then, is not so much competition for limited resources but rather the creative adaptation of life to an abundance of newly acquired habitat.

A concept of evolution that gives proper weight to the role of abundance and diversity is better equipped to explain the prominence of many characteristics that are clearly disadvantageous to a species longterm survival in terms of competition for limited resources and yet persist in spite of this.

Take for example, the peacock’s tail, which would obviously expose the male of the species to innumerable risks with no advantage for it’s survival. The only way such characteristics can develop and persist is if the environment is sufficiently abundant to support such extravagance at relatively little cost to the species longterm survival chances.

Many such examples suggest an interpretation of evolution that is fundamentally different to the one passed down from Darwin’s time. There is another aspect of evolution which is more about creative expression and diversity and flourishing than it is about fighting over limited resources.

Darwinian evolution would tend to reduce biodiversity down to a small number of highly effective predators, but this is not what nature produces.

I thought Craig Isherwood did a great job explaining some of the issues involved.

By John Scrivener on 2012 04 02 - 21:55:09

Hi John, I am going to read out your comments on our next show if that’s ok with you. Great points!

By Hereward Fenton on 2012 04 03 - 08:11:22

Darwin’s theory may have been influenced by the social and cultural perspectives of the time, but we can apply his theories and experiment with them today and see that they work. In the same way that Galileo was successful because he pandered to the desires of the wealthy nobility - telling the Medici family that their noble lineage was written in the heavens, as Jupiter has the same number of moons as sons in the Medici family. Those powers at the time can use it to their advantage, that doesn’t make those theories invalid automatically, or that Darwin deliberately created his theories to benefit those few.

“It is also clear to me that evolution is not so much the product of competition between species” - how so? It seems like you don’t understand the basic idea of natural selection. If one species outcompetes another, they cut off resources to the other which then dies out, adapts, or moves on. If they die out, they are eliminated from the gene pool entirely. Some might die out and some might adapt if a few individuals excel physiologically. Their genes survive to be passed on. they might not be able to compete, and find other ways to find food/survive in a new area. What you say about “abundance and diversity” doesn’t actually add any new knowledge - the individuals that survive to pass on their genes are the ones who outcompete those who cannot take advantage of that abundance. Your idea is a minor and obvious aspect of evolutionary theory, not an alternative theory.

As for peacocks - google the Handicap Principle.

A small number of highly effective predators? I don’t think you’ve thought about this enough. specifically, selection and abundance as drivers of evolution are not mutually exclusive. Imagine a dense forest - there is a lot of abundance of plant life, so herbivores can thrive. A carnivore could also thrive on consuming the herbivores. But if they consume all of the herbivores, they die out because there’s no more food. Fortunately, some herbivores are more adept at escaping (running, jumping, flying, etc) than others. In turn, the carnivores which survive are the ones who can keep up - those who don’t starve and die out - their genes are not passed on.
There could not be only carnivores because this would create a loop closed of from the food chain which could not sustain itself. Imagine if the carnivores did kill off the herbivores like you suggest they would. What would they eat? Each other? Where would their energy come from? The entire ecological cycle is powered by the sun - photosynthesis -> plants -> herbivores -> carnivores(predators)/omnivores. You wouldve been a bit closer to being right if you’d said omnivores, but still not right. Google ‘fox rabbit equilibrium’. You’ll find a graph that shows fox and rabbit populations reach an equilibrium of fluctuating populations as evidence of this.

So both abundance and competition drive selection and evolution. abundance can drive evolution - but not without competition. Not as individuals killing each other, but those who can better access resources excel.

Instead of trying to prove the global elites wrong about evolution - confront the real issue; that they might be right about how evolution works. They realise that the earth has limited abundance, and hence a carrying capacity. The moral issue here is not that life is harsh and people have to compete and those who adapt survive - these are hard facts of nature. The moral issue is that governments can and are instituting veiled depopulation programs in response to the reality of evolution.

Truth News is alienating itself further by publishing this content.

By R S on 2012 04 03 - 09:05:12

My position is that I am open to hearing all points of view, and may the best argument win!

However, I find the suggestion that merely airing certain views will lead to alienation and loss of credibility rather chilling. This is the language of repression and intolerance and is anathema to our mission here at TNRA.

It’s one thing to say the argument is wrong, quite another to suggest it is “inappropriate”.

By Hereward Fenton on 2012 04 03 - 09:32:04

“selection and abundance as drivers of evolution are not mutually exclusive” ... indeed, nor did I suggest they were. Rather it is a question of relative importance, in other words, which factor has greater influence on the evolutionary development of a species.

Clearly, under some circumstance, competition between species will be the primary selective pressure. Such circumstances would be characterised by a scarcity of limiting resources.

An environment in which all the available niche habitats are occupied and sources of food are few, will tend to exhibit the stasis we observe in a climax ecosystem, which remains relatively constant over long periods of time. Evolutionary change proceeds gradually.

On the other hand, an environment that is initially devoid of lifeforms, whether new land created by volcanic activity, or a hillside stripped bare by landslide, or a newly formed lake, will have an abundance of ecological niches available for colonization.

Such an environment will support a rapid proliferation of lifeforms and the development of an endemic ecosystem in which new species may emerge. Under these circumstances, speciation and evolutionary change will be relatively rapid and driven by the abundance of available opportunities presented by nature, rather than fierce competition for limited resources.

My criticism of Darwinian theory is leveled at the relative importance given to competition over several other aspects of life that are, to my mind, equally if not more important.

For instance, the importance of selective factors such as sexual attraction, love, beauty, abundance, cooperation, mutualism and creativity, as drivers of evolution, are often overlooked by the stuffy minded technocrats who peddle the conventional wisdom and never dare think for themselves.

By John Scrivener on 2012 04 03 - 11:11:59

It’s important to be on the right side of science, lest you make yourselves look silly.

To most people that title looks as rediculous as ‘Newton debunked!’ or ‘Pythagoras debunked!’

By R S on 2012 04 03 - 11:29:17

You are correct R S. This site was apparently founded on a scientific basis so we can’t go off on tangents to appease the Christian extremists whose science is flakey and unfounded.

By orion on 2012 04 03 - 15:13:09

They really have shot themselves in the foot with this type of CEC Christian propaganda. The CEC and its la rouche foundation is a joke. *unsubscribe*

By ben lucas on 2012 04 03 - 15:17:45

Science can only ever approximate truth. Knowledge is always construed within a conceptual framework which is ultimately rooted in the biological mechanisms of the mind. Sentient beings observe the environment about them, process information and comprehend their relationship to the world via the function of their brain. No one has a monopoly on the truth, knowledge is constantly acquired and understanding develops accordingly.

When Darwin developed his theory on the origin of species, he had no knowledge of the genetic basis of hereditary characteristics, nor of the cellular mechanisms responsible for the alteration of heritable characteristics.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Darwin’s theory has undergone much scrutiny and revision over the hundred and fifty years since his theory was first published. To imagine that Darwin’s theory of natural selection provides a complete, inscrutable explanation of evolution to this day, requires a faith-based interpretation of reality akin to religious belief.

A fundamental tenet of the scientific method requires that our theories accommodate the observable facts, not vice-versa. Ignoring or denying evidence that doesn’t fit an established theory is PR, spin and propaganda, not science.

By John Scrivener on 2012 04 03 - 20:11:41

Commercial free edit (I find removing the ads from the mp3 easier than fast forwarding with my mp3 player, might as well share the benefit to the one or two people who see this and share my pain).

http://kiwi6.com/file/77jrt005qr

By Stephen on 2012 04 06 - 19:51:07

Listen Live

Recent Comments

RECLAIM AUSTRALIA IS DOOMED

Although I agree with many of their ideas, the forces reigned against RAM are too great, violent, statist and reactionary for them to remain a non-political, broad based, multi-ethnic, community protest group for much longer. The Left and their Antifa nihilist fellow travelers are already pushing them towards the extreme Right, by calling them racists and Islamophobes and so on. Whilst the extreme Right have aligned themselves with RAM. With fascists of the Left and Right pressuring them they will not be able to remain beyond the Left-Right divide and will inevitably move to the Right - the extreme Right. Which is already happening. A development which will alienate decent Australians of all ethnic backgrounds many of whom currently support them. 

The RAM leadership have already established open alliances with the Patriotic Front (the ape in the photograph is a Patriot Front supporter at a recent Richmond demonstration) Australia First and Golden Dawn, a Greek neo-Nazi party. Members of these collectivist groups are currently attending RAM demonstrations all over Australia.

There is a real need in Australia to establish a political movement beyond the Left-Right divide and their vested interests, a movement that questions the current direction Australia is heading i.e. the direction the Left/Right and their extremes would like to take it; that questions the efficacy of state sponsored multiculturalism, as opposed to a proper, non-discriminatory immigration policy; that questions the validity of political correctness; that is politically neutral, anti-war and pro environment; that is opposed to all collectivists ideologies (fascisms of the Left and Right); that would dismantle the power pyramids of corporations and banks and their ability to impact on government; that would dissolve all anti-terror laws and all laws that impose on the rights and freedom of the individual and the people.   

(The ape in the photograph is a Patriot Front supporter at a recent Richmond demonstration)

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/reclaim-australia-rally-set-for-sydney-on-sunday-20150718-gifb9s.html

http://australiafirstparty.net/news/reclaiming-australia-queensland-senate-campaign/

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 07 26 - 15:36:56
From the entry 'Dylann Roof: soldier in a new race war or just a pawn in the game?'.

Hello there I am so thrilled I found your web site, I really found you by error, while I was searching on Digg for something else, Anyways I am here now and would just like to say thanks for a incredible post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I donÚčÖ have time to go through it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a lot more, Please do keep up the great work.

By Prova a Adidas Neutro Originals Nizza Nero Giallo on 2015 07 20 - 08:41:30
From the entry 'Statism, the greater good and the big lie'.

I second Keith’s assertion that Mike Holt from Restore Australia is very much a fake.  He bangs on about Halaal being a scam and money maker for Islam (and no I don’t support Halaal whatsoever), but makes excuses for its counterpart Kosher as being a somehow legitimate.  Double standards?  When I confronted him about this fact he went off on a convoluted tirade about Israel being some sort of “Bastion of Democracy” in the middle east…Really!, I will leave that one up to the readers to decide on.  I found that MH came across as disingenuous to say the least.

By Citizen Scorn on 2015 07 19 - 07:33:43
From the entry 'Restore Australia!'.

Without doubt, TNR is one of the best, if not the best alternative news source on the net. Which doesn’t mean Herewood is always right. His job, I believe, is to present the facts as he sees them as an objectively as possible, without fear or favor.  For this, he has my respect and support. But I believe he needs to be careful and to think a little deeper about the problems of “racism,” in Australia. He has labelled the Reclaim Australia Movement as racist. I’m wondering if his objectivity is a little weak on this point, a little without foundation.

Of course all political movements have its fringe groups and individuals. We make a distinction between, for example, a Muslim and a fundamentalist Muslim (Islamist), and by so doing we don’t claim that all Muslims are blood thirsty fanatics. If its good for the Muslims, then its good for RAM, which is bound to attract a few lunatics and real racists. But to brand the entire movement as “racist” is wrong; it is the same ploy that is used by the mainstream media and its left-wing, establishment Marxist boot boys.

One of the first things I noticed when i attended a RAM rally recently were the amount of non-white people in attendance, including Aboriginals. In fact the main banner of RAM contains an Australian flag and an Aboriginal flag. Speakers at their rallies have included Jews, Arabs, Indians, Aboriginals, Chinese and so on. What does this tell you? Is this really a fascist-Nazi-racist movement whose stated aim are the eradication and exclusion of other cultures, in place of some sort of Aussie white Reich, or is this just propaganda that is being propagated by the left for their own political interests. Consequently, we all know where the culmination of their politics have led, historically speaking, which are to the imposition of terror and dictatorships.

We can be thankful for small mercies, in terms of the Left, which today mostly tends to attract collectivists, establishmentarians and the privileged sons and daughters of the upper bourgeoisie, who seems to share one thing in common, nativity….

By Eugene on 2015 07 18 - 16:03:54
From the entry 'Dylann Roof: soldier in a new race war or just a pawn in the game?'.

Mike Holt from Restore Australia is very much a fake.  He hasn’t even been citizen for but a few years.  But, he makes out like he was born there.  ALSO - this guy spent 30 years in Thailand working shady businesses.  I would wager that his primary purpose in being an activist is that he wants to make money off selling merchandise.

By Keith on 2015 07 17 - 20:51:15
From the entry 'Restore Australia!'.

good to see you putting out some new shows heraward

freely the banana girl is to a certain extent a troll, as is her boyfriend durian rider. they have been trolling the fitness community on youtube for some time… and yes they are extreme but they are also trolls. They use their trolling to spread their message. currently, another dude called vegangains is trolling the fitness community as well.

i am a vegetarian, and it was seeing this documentary on the pork industry that started me on the vegetarian path. for anyone interested, its pretty off the charts disturbing and its australian as well. its pretty much made by dudes breaking into pork farms and filming what they find

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KArL5YjaL5U

Would the world be better if people cared where their food came from? probably, they might then care about other things too

do you become a better person if you dont eat meat? i feel like a better person mainly because animals aren’t being hurt because of me. i dont feel humans have to eat meat really… or at least not much. How can you watch that documentary on pork, know that that is pretty much whats going on and turn a blind eye to it? I think its basic empathy and just saying well ‘i like bacon so yeah’ is in my opinion wrong and i can see freleys point of view to an extent. In my opinion, at least these people believe in something. i see my money as my vote, henceforth im ethical as to what i do with it. free range eggs became mainstream for exactly this reason… although im pretty sure woolies and coles lobbied the state to change the definition of the word ‘free range’ at some point. I dont eat beef because the amount of resources that go into growing a cow are pretty crazy. Think about how much grass that cow needs to eat before it is harvested and how much space it requires. think of how many vegies you could grow in the same space with the same amount of water. lamb? comon, think about what your doing here… but that being said i think most vegans are total loons. People like freeley should be advocating for the destruction of lions and tigers, as lions and tigers murder other animals in truly horrific style. if we humans are smart enough to not harm animals, then we should be stopping the animals that harm other animals from existing. Freeley also kills birds when she flies in aeroplanes so she is a hypocrite.

feminism is one of the biggest problems in society today and although there is some valid historical basis to it, the liberation of the human female from their biology is in my opinion largely a product of the technological advance of humans. sufferagettes where never machine gunned on the streets, unlike the men that where drafted and sent off to war to die just a few years earlier. as technology has advanced, women have advanced as well, however now its going way too far and is pretty blatantly anti male in many respects. i view feminism in its modern context as a tool of the social marxists that really isnt doing society a great deal of good at this time. its screwing up gender dynamics and is wrecking women and men for each other. i see it as low frequency, lowest common denominator idiocy, just like a lot of the the race baiting ‘is this racist’ stuff getting around that is being perpetuated pretty much as a distraction, divide and conquer strategy by the power elite. idiots love this kind of bicker and beef… it would be funny if it wasn’t so serious

anyway

I agree with steven friar. gods a maniac

good show… keep making them

By r0Kb3B0p on 2015 07 14 - 21:05:32
From the entry 'Addictions, obsessions, fanaticisms and distractions'.

Really truthfull.

By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:56:36
From the entry 'Defending your personal health choices'.

Yeah sure authority aware.

By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:28:55
From the entry 'What is the future of Australia?'.

Stay tuned for more rules here as usually is the case!!!

By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:21:50
From the entry 'Mass media disinformation and brainwashing dissected'.

Almost two months since the last broadcast! How the hell can you expect people to donate when you don’t broadcast? Looks like the ship of truth has sprung a leak. This broadcast has been part of my life almost since its inception…it is one of the few alternative news sources that hasn’t gone off the deep end, by dilution credible information with crap e.g. Fairdinkum Radio and Info Wars…Pittard started FR with some incredibly interesting material, but then he flipped…Today he sounds like a fundamentalist preacher, the Christian equivalent to a Fanatical Islamist. As an atheist, I think he’s really ###### up a potentially good show. As for Info Wars, all they would have to do to improve is dump Alex Jones, what a shit-for-brains. I reckon Jones and Pittard are allowed to proliferate, because they’re so stupid and harmless. I suppose they have some entertainment value, and along with David Icke are living examples of how low the alternative media has sunk. Truth News Radio is, or should I say was, way ahead of them all ahead of them all in terms of credibility How sad that its come to this.

By Eugene on 2015 06 28 - 17:28:56
From the entry 'Introducing Internet.org: Mark Zuckerberg's free 'private' internet which will soon be rolled out to 4 billion+ people'.

Categories