How do you know you are right in this and that's not the desired thought outcome of their outward projections?

Because their outward projection is the opposite - normies rarely suspect the elite is engaged in secret societies, eyes wide shut parties and occult rituals. They assume they're just being rich and extravagant but nevertheless share the same general culture and worldview as the normies. Sure, pop culture is ramping up the exposure to that occult side recently but still it's perceived as just entertainment or art (like the Olympics ceremony, Hollywood and the music industry).

Could you please reference some?

The problem of getting to a first replicator. Basically, evo proponents argue species evolve through sexual selection but there must have been a time when evolution happened without it. Think about it - they claim the ability to reproduce sexually evolved out of necessity but obviously those species did just fine millions of years without it.

The same goes for other beneficial complex systems that were formed by this blind process like snake venom, but the venomous snakes had to be able to thrive and reproduce before this "upgrade". Terms like "necessity" or "benefit" presuppose purpose and evaluation but evolution is a purely mechanistic process of inputs and outputs - there's no purpose or evaluation present, it is us who rationalize it post-factum. So how come multiple generations of snakes which reproduce successfully decide they need to develop venom sacs and hollow teeth? Such a process would take millions of generations and until it's complete, there wouldn't be any benefits from it and it would only cause useless energy expenditure. And yet every generation continually develops it for the unforeseeable future as if they're working according to plan. And they're developing it without "knowing" the final system would work properly and make them fitter at all, because there's no feedback happening.

But I prefer to take it at the philosophical worldview level - evo theory presupposes naturalism, determinism and materialism is the case (everything in existence being matter in motion, cause and effect and without purpose). But this process adheres to certain universal laws and regularities like the laws of physics and laws of logic which I would argue are immaterial concepts that are properties of a mind. Yet according to the evo materialist worldview minds are identical to brains which didn't exist for a very long time. Therefore laws of logic which govern the evo process didn't exist up until brains capable of conceptual thinking developed - this is a contradiction.

How do you know you are right in this and that's not the desired thought outcome of their outward projections?

Because their outward projection is the opposite - normies rarely suspect the elite is engaged in secret societies, eyes wide shut parties and occult rituals. They assume they're just being rich and extravagant but nevertheless share the same general culture and worldview as the normies. Sure, pop culture is ramping up the exposure to that occult side recently but still it's perceived as just entertainment or art (like the Olympics ceremony, Hollywood and the music industry).

Could you please reference some?

The problem of getting to a first replicator. Basically, evo proponents argue species evolve through sexual selection but there must have been a time when evolution happened without it. Think about it - they claim the ability to reproduce sexually evolved out of necessity but obviously those species did just fine millions of years without it.

The same goes for other beneficial complex systems that were formed by this blind process like snake venom, but the venomous snakes had to be able to thrive and reproduce before this "upgrade". Terms like "necessity" or "benefit" presuppose purpose and evaluation but evolution is a purely mechanistic process of inputs and outputs - there's no purpose or evaluation present, it is us who rationalize it post-factum. So how come multiple generations of snakes which reproduce successfully decide they need to develop venom sacs and hollow teeth? Such a process would take millions of generations and until it's complete, there wouldn't be any benefits from it and it would only cause useless energy expenditure. And yet every generation continually develops it for the unforeseeable future as if they're working according to plan. And they're developing it without "knowing" the final system would work properly and make them fitter at all, because there's no feedback happening.

But I prefer to take it at the philosophical worldview level - evo theory presupposes naturalism, determinism and materialism is the case (everything in existence being matter in motion, cause and effect and without purpose). But this process adheres to certain universal laws and regularities like the laws of physics and laws of logic which I would argue are immaterial concepts that are properties of a mind. Yet according to the evo materialist worldview minds are identical to brains which didn't exist for a very long time. Therefore laws of logic which govern the evo process didn't exist - this is a contradiction.