"Pope doesn't come over to where you work and slap Jamie Dimon's dick out of your mouth."

[DeSwiss]

18. Well, just great!

- A captive audience. Perfect.

Here's an monograph I'm writing and editing now. See what you think:

The Flaw

While evolution is without doubt, since evolutionary mutations can be observed in a test-tube, it occurred to me recently that the Darwinian thesis of ''survival of the fittest'' as the driving force behind all species' existence and the will to live, is flawed. At least with respect to homo sapiens sapiens.

I reached this conclusion after failing to see any survival advantage gained as a species when limiting our cognitive abilities and function through reducing our ability to use our brain's computing capacity (except when we're sleep) to about 5%. They think Einstein maybe used 10% or so.

What's further, (and more daunting to consider) 97% of our DNA's function and physical programming capabilities are completely unknown to us. Ninety-seven percent. Arrogant and no doubt cock-holded scientists have had the audacity to name these DNA strands, ''junk DNA'' because they lack the knowledge of what it is.

Now, if form follows function and the function here is to survive, then why would a species not use 100% of the capacities and capabilities of all its survival components and systems? It does not do this with its other organs, components and systems. Our lungs fill-up all the way, not 5%. Our kidneys work all day all night, not at a rate of 3%. We'd be dead in minutes. These organs are designed to work and do function at 100% capacity from the start, unless some defect or disease prevents this.

So why would a species carry all this dead weight through one generation to the next? What survival advantage has been gained? Why maintain, feed, provide gargantuan amounts of blood and water and energy for your brain, and 95% of its functional value for survival is beyond the reach of the person in whose head this organ resides?

These two areas alone (the brain and DNA) account for an otherwise useless capacity for storage and function at a 90-97% loss-rate which will not sustain life if that pattern were followed by all our other organs and component parts. So this part is impossible to fathom as a central aspect of Darwinian theory. It's kind of like having a super computer but its operating with a 8086 IBM chipset. Or a Tandy-1000.

And that 3% of the DNA conundrum is even more mind-boggling to me. It's like having a copy of the NASA programming that sent the Rovers to Mars, but we're only allowed access to the BASIC and maybe DOS 2.0 programming part of the language right now. When trying to contemplate what that other 97% could make us capable of doing it naturally leads to wondering why it's functioning this way at all. Because it makes no logical sense for this to be a natural occurrence. I can't think of any other examples in Nature where this is true. Just us humans.

Think about it.