In Which We Find a Wonderful New Argument
Against the Possibility of Change or Evolution
					Tell the General, "Shit happens."
								-Captain Ron
						Does zoology include humans?

Earth habits die slowly, even down here among the dead men. For instance, I still have my addictions to guerrilla ontologgy, the Marx brothers and post-modernist literature. In fact, I will now begin my usual post-modernist jig by undermining your confidence that you know what sort of page you are reading. Remember the poor folks back in the 1720s reading the latest projector's pamphlet, A Modest Proposal, which urged the most humane and economic solution to Ireland's problems: namely to let the English eat the Irish babies, instead of leaving them to die slowly of starvation. Some readers in the first few decades after publication muse have made ten guesses about how to understand this, including the wild notion that maybe that bloody Lemuel Gulliver had done it again.

I will now disprove the theory of evolution. Nothing up either sleeve. Behold--

1. An animal can belong to only one taxonomic family. For instance, a critter cannot belong to the set of all Kangaroos and the set of all Irish pub-keepers, can it? Or the set of all lobsters and also all rhinoceros? Or even to the set all U.S. Senators and all ring-tailed baboons-however amusing we may find that last idea?

2. The offspring of any two animals also can only belong to the one taxonomic family, that of it's parents.

When horses mate, little horses get born, never little owls. Rats bring forth other rats, not hummingbirds. Salmon do not give birth to wombats. Ect.

Even when cross-species fertilisation occurs, e.g., the mating of a donkey and a horse bringing forth a mule, the mule belongs to the same family (equines) as the parents, even if not to the same species as either.

No biology text will challenge any of these "laws" or generalisations.

3. However, if evolution exists, some animals must produce offspring who do not belong to the same taxonomic family as themselves.

Two fish most have brought forth something, some biological monster, some kind of amphibian. Two reptiles must have produced a mammal. And, most crucially for the evolutionists war with Bibliophiles, two apes must have given birth to a not-ape...a human, or a proto-human.

But we have just seen that this cannot happen, according to biological and genetic laws. No two animals can produce an animal not of their own family.

Ergo, evolution cannot occur. Simple as 1-2-3.

(The rev. Jerry Felwell, the rev. Pat Robertson, and similar certified saints of sanctified Fundamentalism, may use this argument any time they want, but they must pay me a royalty of $100,00 each time they use it, or I will Sue them for everything they own, including their bridgework. This warning constitutes legal notification.)

Of course, if you don't like the Creationism, you will want a way out of this bit seemingly iron logic. Hang on. Maybe I'll give it to you in a little while. Trust me.

Meanwhile, consider that I either belong to the set of all living American writers or all dead American writers. Accordingly, this book belongs either to the set of all works by Robert Anton Wilson or it belongs to the set of all literary forgeries. Assuming some literary Elmyr perpetrated this, do you regard it a "good" forgery (containing very Wilsonian prose) or a "bad" forgery (a weak imitation of Wilsonian prose)?

this is an extract form the cosmic triger Vol-3 by RAW (it was Kindly donated i think)
Link to rAw's page


princpla Convert This Page to Pilot DOC Format