Evolution theory and science eng.12.1.2021

”The truth is not for all men,
but only those who seek it.”
- Ayn Rand

Darwin's theory
 The origin of life
 Is life biochemically determined?
 The role of chance
 Cambrian explosion
 Paleontology and transitional fossils
 Gene manipulation and the latest research
 Alien Intervention
 Conclusions

 “Because the theory of evolution contains an
explanation of the origin of humanity, it has
had a profound impact on human society.”
(Wikipedia)
 “It set a new direction that later scientific
research cannot ignore.” (Independent)
 “Modern thinking is heavily dependent on the
influence of Charles Darwin.” (Scientific American)

 “If I were to give an award for the best single
idea anyone ever had, I'd give it to Darwin,
ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone
else.
 In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by
natural selection unifies the realm of life,
meaning, and purpose with the realm of space
and time, cause and effect, mechanism and
physical law.”
Source: DARWIN, MATERIALISM AND EVOLUTION
A review of D C Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea (London, 1995) Alex Callinicos
Alex Callinicos,
Marxist

 “I am an ardent supporter evolutionist
and an ex-Christian, but I must admit
that this one complaint is absolutely
right.
 Evolution theory is a religion.
 This was true of evolution in the
beginning of the theory, and it is still
true today.
 Evolution therefore came into being
as a kind of secular ideology, an
explicit substitute for Christianity.” Michael Ruse
Professor of
Philosophy and Zoology
Michael Ruse: Saving Darvinism from the Darwinians, National Post, May 13, 2000, p.3

The purpose of the presentation is to draw conclusions
from the latest findings in various disciplines.
Is the evolution outlined by Darwin a valid scientific
theory or is it more of a secular ideology as Michael
Ruse mentioned?

• In his book, “On the Origin of Species” (1859), Charles Darwin, the father of
theory, compared life to a large tree in which the roots of the tree
corresponds to the first cell born.
• Over a long period of time, the branches of the tree represented process by
which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable
physical or behavioral traits.
Charles Darwin

• According to the evolution theory, all existing and past
organisms have evolved from a common strain slowly
through uncontrolled mutations and natural selection.
• According to the theory, the birth and development of
organisms is thus a meaningless process controlled by the
laws of nature.

 The assumption is that because variation/
microevolution is such an overwhelmingly proven
fact that, therefore, macroevolution must be as well.
 Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the
species level, or evolution on a “grand scale,” but it
has never been observed and is more disputable.

 “There is no reason to doubt that Darwin
successfully explained the small
adjustments by which an organism
adapts to local circumstances: changes
to fur density or wing style or beak
shape.
 Yet there are many reasons to doubt
whether he can explain the big picture –
not the fine –tuning of species but the
emergence of new ones.”
David Gelernter
Professor of computer
science at Yale University
Lähde/Source: Gelernter, David: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE

 Darwin's theory
The origin of life
 Alien Intervention
 Conclusions

 As for the origin of life, there are
only two options.
 The first is the birth of life
through uncontrolled mutations
and natural selection.
 Another option is that some
higher intelligence and conscious
mind is behind the birth of life.
 There is no third option.

• Natural selection can only work after the first cell has
been formed that is able to replicate itself and pass the
information on to future generations.
• Darwin assumed that cell was simple blob of jellylike
protoplasm.
• DNA was first discovered in 1869 (Miescher) and its
molecular structure only in 1953 (Crick).

 Before the electron microscopes and other
advanced techniques, it was assumed that the
cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm.
 Technological advances have provided detailed
information about the inner workings of the
cell.
 Each cell is in effect a veritable
microminiaturized factory containing thousands
of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate
molecular machinery.
 A cell is made up altogether of one hundred
thousand million atoms and is far more
complicated than any machine built by human.

• The data content of even a simple cell is
estimated to be at least 10¹² bits.
• This corresponds to about 100 million pages of
the encyclopedia.
*Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894.

 ”If life began unaided under
primordial conditions in a natural
system containing zero knowledge,
 then it should be possible – it should
be easy – to create life in a
laboratory today.
 But determined attempts have failed…
no one has come even close.”
Gregg Easterbrook
Member of the
American Academy
of Arts and Sciences

Alexander Oparin
Russian biochemist
(Origin of Life, p. 196)
“The question of the origin of
the cell is unfortunately one of
the most ambiguous in the
whole theory of evolution.”

Paul Davies
Physicist, professor at
Arizona State University
 “One of the great outstanding
scientific mysteries is the origin
of life.
 How did it happen?...
 The truth is, nobody has a clue.”

 Darwin's theory
Is life biochemically determined?
 Alien intervention
 Conclusions

 In their book “Biochemical Predestination”,
Kenyon and Steinman concluded that
 “Life might have been biochemically
predestined by the properties of
attraction that exist between its chemical
parts, especially between amino acids in
proteins.”
 Kenyon and Steinman believed that proteins
were directly formed by attraction
between amino acids without DNA coding,
and that these were derivatives from non-
living raw chemicals in a conducive
environment.
Dan Kenyon
Gary Steinman

 They argued that life originated with the
chemical properties of amino acids
 causing them to be attracted to each other,
forming first peptides and then long protein
chains.

 In reality, genes contain the DNA information needed to make
amino acids functional molecules called proteins.
 The journey from gene to protein is complex and tightly
controlled within each cell. It consists of two major steps:
transcription and translation.
 During the process of transcription, the information stored in a
gene’s DNA is used as a blueprint to produce a similar molecule
called RNA in the cell nucleus. Both RNA and DNA are made up
of a chain of nucleotide bases, but they have slightly different
chemical properties.
 A cell holds 42 million protein molecules.

 The proteins that make up living organisms are
molecules, but they are composed of tinier building
blocks, known as amino acids.
 There are over 500 amino acids found in nature, yet,
of these, the human genetic code only directly
codes for 20.
 Amino acids have the be in exactly in correct order
to create proteins (just like alphabets in text).

 “Life requires carbohydrates, nucleic acids,
lipids and proteins to be born.
 Biologists seem to think the chemical
synthesis are easy to explain.
 Biologists have been seriously
misinformed.
 Synthetic chemistry does not provide these
mechanisms and biologists do not have any
idea of them.
 The basis upon which we as scientists are
relying on the evolution theory is so shaky
that we must openly state the situation for
what it is,
 It is a complete mystery.”
James Tour
Dr. of synthetic
chemistry
Rice University

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
 “Cells employ a complex information-
processing system to access and
express the information stored in DNA
as they use that information to build
the proteins and protein machines
that they need to stay alive.
 Scientists attempting to explain the
origin of life must explain how both
information-rich molecules and the
cell’s information-processing system
arose.”

 What makes the origin of life and of the genetic
code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is
without any biological function unless it is
translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis
of the proteins whose structure is laid dawn by the
code.
 But…the machinery by which the cell translates the
code consists of at least fifty macromolecular
components which are themselves coded in the
DNA.
 Thus the code cannot be translated except by
using certain products of its translation.”

 ”The biggest problem for evolution
is how life got started.
 Because you need DNA to make
proteins, you need DNA to make
RNA, and you need RNA to make
proteins.
 So it is worse than what came
first, the chicken or the egg? Jeff Tomkins
PhD Genetics

 “The true beginnings of life and the origin
of the species is fundamentally a genetic
question that has the only direct scientific
answers to the question.
 Darwin tried to answer 100 years before
anyone knew that DNA was the substance
of heredity.
 According to Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson,
Darwin knew in 1859 only a fraction i.e.
about 15% of what we know today.
 If Darwin were to examine the evidence
today using modern science, his
conclusions would be vastly different.”
Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson

 “If it could be demonstrated that any
complex organ existed which could
not possibly have been formed by
numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would
absolutely break down.”
 With this statement, Charles Darwin
provided a criterion by which his
theory of evolution could be
falsified. -Charles Darwin,
Origin of Species

 Irreducible complexity is a term
used to describe a
characteristic of certain
complex systems whereby they
need all of their individual
component parts in place in
order to function.
 In other words, it is impossible
to reduce the complexity of
(or to simplify) an irreducibly
complex system by removing
any of its component parts and
still maintain its functionality.
 A simple example of irreducibly
complexity is a mousetrap.

 The bacterial flagellum is a
cellular outboard motor that
bears the marks of irreducibly
complex system.
 It consists of up to 40 individual
parts and will stop working if
even one part is removed. It
also need to compiled in exactly
in correct order.
 About 10 parts of the system can
be found in the rest of the
microscopic world (co-option).
Source: http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/motor.htm.

 Irreducible complexity systems challenge
Darwinian evolution because they require high
level of complexity before any functional
advantage is provided and thus cannot evolve in
step-by-step manner.
 Co-option advocates of how Irreducible IC
systems evolved, so they do not explain the
evolution of IC.
 Rather, they typically cite mere sequence
similarity between proteins (called homology) in
an attempt to find possible sources for co-opting
parts.
 Such inadequate explanations ignore that reusage
of similar parts could reflect common design
rather than common decent.

Kenyon changed his view:
 "It is my conviction that if any professional
biologist will take adequate time to
examine carefully the assumptions upon
which the macro-evolution doctrine rests,
and the observational and laboratory
evidence that bears on the problem of
origins, he/she will conclude that there
are substantial reasons for doubting the
truth of this doctrine.
 Moreover, I believe that a scientifically
sound creationist view of origins is not
only possible, but it is to be preferred over
the evolutionary one."
Dean H. Kenyon
professor of biology
San Francisco State
University

 Darwin's theory
The role of chance
 Conclusions

 How many letters need to be dropped on the
table to randomly form two sentences written
by William Shakespeare?
 How many amino acids must be “dropped” into
the sea in order for them to randomly form a
protein?

 ”The probability of constructing a
rather short functional protein at
random becomes so small (1
chance in10¹²⁵) as to approach the
universal probability bound of 1
chance in 10¹⁵⁰,
 the point at which appeals to
chance become absurd given the
’probabilistic resources’ of the
entire universe.”
- Stephen C. Mayer, Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology
Stephen C. Mayer
Geophysicist, professor

Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA
Biologist Douglas Axe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZiLsXO-dYo
Dr. Ann Gauger Answers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7NwKYUXOs
 The formation of even the simplest protein by
chance would take more time than the entire
universe has existed.
 Moreover, in the unlikely event that the protein
were formed by chance, it would be
immediately destroyed due to entropy.

 ”We must now admit to ourselves
that the probability of life arising
by chance by evolution is the same
probability of throwing six in dice
five million consecutive times.
 ”Random and impersonal chance
does not create complexity and
design.”
Sir Fred Hoyle
Professor of astronomy
and mathematics,
University of Oxford

Ilya Prigogine
Nobel laureate
“The statistical probability that
organized compounds and all more
complete harmonic forms of reactions
are typical of living organizations
formed by chance is ZERO.”
Prigogine, Ilya:
From Being to Becoming
Time and Complexity in the
Physical Sciences

 “What I think the DNA material has
done is that it has shown, by the
almost unbelievable complexity of
the arrangement which are needed to
produce (life),
 that intelligence must have been
involved in getting these
extraordinarily diverse elements to
work together.” Anthony Flew
Professor

Gates, Bill: The Road Ahead, Penguin: London, Revised, 1996 p. 228

 Claiming that DNA programs itself is like
claiming windows XP will eventually rewrite
itself to become windows 10 given enough time.
 DNA did not go from simple to complex.
 DNA was already programmed and a program
requires a programmer.
 If you introduce mutations to computer program
code, the computer crashes.
 Why then does random mutation not crash
biological creatures?

 Richard Dawkins: “Biology is a study of complicated
things that have the appearance of having been
designed with a purpose. Much of biology has become
information technology.
 Genes, a central component of life, are digital
information. Genes are coded information, computer
tape, digital code, computer program.
 The majority of DNA is programs that send
instructions to protein-coding genes.
 An organism is a survival machine for self-replicating
coded information.”
 To the best of our knowledge, digital information is
always a product of intelligence.
Richard Dawkins
Professor
https://www.youtube.com
/
watch?v=prFZTMIKOi4

 ”Because information is required for all life
processes, it can be stated unequivocally that
information is an essential characteristic of all
life.
 All efforts to explain life processes in terms of
physics and chemistry will always be unsuccessful.
 This is the fundamental problem confronting
present-day biology, which is based on evolution.
 There is no known law of nature, and no known
sequence of events, which can cause information
to originate by itself in matter.”
Dr. Werner Gitt
Gitt, Werner: “In the beginning
was information”

 Information is not bound to its medium. It is massless,
intangible, immaterial and abstract construct of mind. The only
place information come is mind.
 Material world has no potential to create information.
 One of the laws of information science is that information never
originates by itself, never spontaneously comes about.
 Any time somebody trace information back to its source, it always
comes back to a mind.
 Since there is a huge amount of information in DNA, there must
be a mind behind it.
 In DNA the information is stored in the form of chemical letters. It
is possible to write the information content of DNA in paper and
ink form and that is what human genome project is about.

 In his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin
never sought to unravel the mystery of
where biological information comes from.
 For him, the origins of life remained
shrouded in impenetrable obscurity.
 While the digital code in DNA first came to
light in the 1950s, it wasn’t until later that
scientists began to sense the implications
behind the exquisitely complex technical
system for processing and storing
information in the cell.
 The cell does what any advanced computer
operating system can do but with almost
inconceivably greater suppleness and
efficiency. Charles Darwin

 Darwin's theory
Cambrian explosion
 Conclusions

3,6 billion years
 The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was an event
approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period
when practically all major animal phyla started “suddenly”
appearing in the fossil record.
 It lasted for about 10 million years and resulted in the
divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.

Time Magazine
December 4, 1995

”If numerous species belonging to
the same genera or families, have
really started into life all at once,
the fact would be fatal to the
theory of descent with slow
modification through natural
selection.”
(The Origin of Species, p. 302)
Charles Darwin

 ”The Cambrian Explosion constitutes a
major episode in the history of life.
 There is no evolutionary tree found in the
fossils as theory claims. It is more like a
lawn than a tree.
 If evolution were true, one would expect
the record to start with one type of animal
life, then increase to two, and so on.
 Yet fossil studies have shown that
essentially all phyla were present at the
start, each distinct from the others and
each fully equipped to function and survive.
John D. Morris

 The majority of the genetic
inheritance of species was formed
at the beginning of the Cambrian
explosion 540-530 million years ago.
 The Chinese research team found
that since then, the genetic
inheritance has steadily shrunk,
meaning Darwin’s tree is actually
upside down.

 Darwin's theory
 The birth of life
Paleontology and transitional fossils
 Conclusions

 ”If Darwin’s theory were to hold true,
there should be millions of fossils from
organisms that have partially altered
properties and organs. But instead there
are none.”
 The fossil record does not convincingly
document a single transition from one
species to another.” Steven M. Stanley
Professor of
palaeontology
John Hopkins university

 “Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full
of such intermediate links?
 Geology assuredly does not reveal
any such finely graduated organic
chain.
 This is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be
argued against the theory.”
Charles Darwin
Origin of Species
p. 413

 ”It is hard for us palaeontologists,
steeped as we are in a tradition of
Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-
Darwinian explanations for the
Cambrian explosion have failed
miserably.
 New data acquired in recent years,
instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma,
have rather made it worse.” Mark McMenamin
Geologist and
palaeontologist
-Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke
College and author of “The Emergence of Animal”

 ”Extensive exploration and fossil
discovery in following years (after
Darwin) have not brought such in-
between forms to light.
 The vast majority of taxonomic
orders and families which today live
are also found as fossils, yet
without fossil transitions.” Dr. John D.
Morris

 It is difficult to imagine functional
intermediates of species.
 If a bat of bird evolved from a land
animal, the transitional forms would
have forelimbs that were neither good
legs nor good wings.
 So how would such things be selected?
 The fragile long limbs of hypothetical
halfway stages of bats and Pterosaurus
would seem like hindrance than help.”
Pterosaurus

 ”The fossil record features stasis is a
dominant trend.
 It does not speak of major changes.
 Evolution or descent from common
ancestor model demands that major
changes visited every population.”
Paulyn Cartwright
Professor,
Evolutionary biology

 It is a fact that any attempt to chance DNA is
stopped and reversed by the DNA repair process.
 Mutations (DNA replication errors) are the result of
DNA that is replicated with damage (one out of ten
million duplications) that passes on to the offspring.
 Mutations are random, unpredictable errors that
cause crippling diseases, loss of function and
destruction of the host person or animal.
 Mutations do not improve but destroy species.

 The term mutation originated before the
advent of DNA sequencing and ... are
more likely to produce severe changes
in protein structure and function.
 The mutation disrupts the structure of
DNA, it does not improve it.
 Extinction is well-documented in the
fossil record, and while extinction is a
necessary part of the evolutionary
scenario, it is not evolution.
 Extinction might better be considered
as the opposite of evolution.

 The chromosome count within each species is
fixed. Each species is locked into its chromosome
count that cannot be changed. The chromosomes
make crossing of the species an uncrossable
barrier.
 If an individual develops an extra chromosome or
loses such due to a DNA copy defect, it cannot
reproduce successfully.
 Thus, a defective genetic heritage cannot be
passed on to the next generation (and thus the
species cannot in practice be transformed into
another species).
 The base differences between the human and
chimpanzee genomes would require 10,000 A4
pages, each with 4,000 characters.
Organism Chromosomes
Banana fly 9
Frog 26
Cat 38
Pig 38
Ape 42
Rabbit 44
Human 46
Chimpanzee 48
Lam 54
Cow 60
Donkey 62
Horse 64
Dog 78
Chicken 78

 In 1921, Theophilus Painter published a study claiming
erroneously that humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes, the
same number as a chimpanzee.
 Other scientists “confirmed” this until year in 1956 the truth
was revealed that humans do have only 23 chromosomes.
 There is no way to explain how chimpanzees, numbers 24
pairs of chromosomes, could have evolved into humans with 23
pairs of chromosomes.

Colin Patterson, Ph.D.
Paleontologist,
Senior Principle
Scientific Officer in the
Paleontology
Department,
British Museum of
Natural History,
London
 ”No one has ever produced a species by the
mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever
got even near it.”
 “There is not one such fossil for which one could
make a watertight argument. It does seem that the
level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably
shallow…”
 “Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary
research. But is its explanatory power any more than
verbal?…
 Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems
somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent
knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics…
 During the last few years, you've experienced a shift
from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I
know that's true of me.”

 Darwin's theory
 Genetics and irreducible complexity
Gene manipulation and the latest
research
 Conclusions

Lähde: https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/06/04/new-genetic-study-seriously-challenges-darwins-theory-of-evolution/
A massive new genetic
study by Mark Stoeckle
from The Rockefeller
University in New York and
David Thaler at the
University of Basel in
Switzerland is opening the
door for new theories
about our origins and the
mechanisms behind the
evolution of species on
our planet.
Mark Stoeckle
David Thaler

 In the conventional narrative of how evolution
proceeds through survival-of-the-fittest and
adaptation to new environments based on random
genetic mutations.
 The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine
out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans,
came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
 “This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought
against it as hard as I could,” said David Thaler.

 All animals also have DNA in their mitochondria,
which are the tiny structures inside each cell that
convert energy from food into a form that cells can
use. Mitochondria contain 37 genes, and one of them,
known as COI, is used to do DNA barcoding.
 Unlike the genes in nuclear DNA, which can differ
greatly from species to species, all animals have the
same set of mitochondrial DNA, providing a common
basis for comparison.
 “DNA barcode”–figured out a way to identify species
by analyzing the COI gene.

 In analysing the barcodes across 100,000
species, the researchers found a tell-tale sign
showing that almost all the animals emerged
about the same time as humans.
 What they saw was a lack of variation in so-
called “neutral” mutations, which are the
slight changes in DNA across generations that
neither help nor hurt an individual’s chances of
survival (such as colour of the eyes).
 In other words, they were irrelevant in terms of
the natural and sexual drivers of evolution.
 These “neutral” mutations are to each other is
like tree rings – they reveal the approximate
age of a species.

 The extant population, no matter what its current size or
similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from
mitochondrial uniformity.
 Somewhere in the past, no farther back than 100 000-
200,000 years ago, most or all animal species ‘got started,’
with a mitochondrial clock set to 0.
 These species ‘started with small founding populations and
later expanded,’ and that extreme conditions — like the last
ice age — can give rise to a subsequent expansion.
 It almost resembles the Noah’s Ark scenario.

 Darwin's theory
Alien intervention
 Conclusions

 But we would not be taking species from the previous world before
the catastrophe, because their mitochondrial clocks would not be
set to 0.
 Rather, we have to see it as a new ‘seeding’ of species on the
planet after a catastrophe wipes out most or all of the species that
were there before.
 And who would be the ones doing the seeding?
 One or more advanced extraterrestrial races.
 It looks that the evolution of the human race has been fostered in
part by the genetic seeding of today’s human and animal kingdom
by advanced extraterrestrial civilizations almost 200,000 years ago?
 Now there is some new scientific evidence of this possibility.

 According to the Voyagers books, man has been
“planted” on Earth on three different
occasions after being destroyed as a result of
wars in space.
 The last planting took place about 75,000
years ago.
 The information provided by the Voyagers books
thus well supports the findings of the
aforementioned scientists, as well as the fact
that there have been humans on Earth before
and that the new planting has taken place by
space civilizations.
Lähde: Deane, Ashyane: Voyagers II – Secrets of Amenti (2002)

The Arithmetical Origin
of the Genetic Code
Vladimir Shcherbak,
Department of
Mathematics,
Kazakh National
University
https://link.springer.co
m/chapter/10.1007%2F
978-1-4020-6340-4_7
Vladimir Shcherbak
 An artificial element is
identifiable in the genetic code.
 It has mathematical factors that
cannot be deduced from any
natural starting point.
 The genetic code “suggests” that
it was developed billions of years
ago outside the solar system.
 It seems that an intellectual
signal is embedded in our genetic
code.

Lloyd Pye
 “Certain methods of DNA timing show that
numerous genes have recently been added
to the human genome.
 If researchers in the field speak openly
about these issues, we would be
marginalized and forced to live in a tent.
 All research projects of this type will be
rejected without any possibility of appeal.
 What can we do? ”
- A DNA researcher’s statement
In a letter to Lloyd Pye

Steven Scherer,
Director of mapping of
the Human Genome
Sequencing Center
 There are 223 genes in the human genome that are
a lateral addition (“jump”) of genetic material.
 These are all related to higher psychological
activity. No other species on Earth has these genes.
 Where do these genes come from?
 Human and chimpanzee genes differ genetically by
less than one percent.
 One percent of the 20,000 genes are 200, meaning
223 genes is almost the same number that
separates us from chimpanzees.
 “Such a 'leap' is not fit for interpreting current
theory of evolution.”

Dr. William Brown,
Molecular biologist,
Hawaii University
 “DNA molecules in the human genome have been
fused together. This does not happen in nature.
 There are many signs of manipulation in our
genetic coding, indicating that advanced technology
has had to be used to reshape the human genome.
 The evidence points to extraterrestrial
intervention.”

 Telomeres are as a rule at the end of
the DNA.
 If a telomere exists in the middle of
a chromosome, we are able to see
that fusion has been performed
because the telomere is supposed to
be only at the end of the
chromosome.
 According to the US National
Academy of Science it can be
included that human chromosome
two is the relic of an ancient DNA
fusion of two ancestral ape
chromosomes.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m-GqZjKtJk

 The source of the information presented here is from the
extraterrestrial EBE called Airl, who was the only person
who survived from the flying saucer crash in Roswell. Airl
is said to have become acquainted with the scientific
level of mankind through the books given to him.
 According to Airl, the theory on evolution assumes that an
inanimate body or chemical decoction can suddenly
become alive by chance or by itself, or that an
electrical discharge hitting a chemical sludge puddle can
magically give birth to a living individual entity.
 Airl relays that “the claim is simply not true. Scientists
on Earth seem to have no idea how, where, when or who
brought life to this planet.
 This is also the reason for the failure of Western medicine
of its complete ignorance and the consideration and
denial that the life-giving spirit is needed to bring
inanimate bodies or cellular tissues to life.”

 According to Airl “evolution does not happen by
accident. It requires a lot of genetic technology.
 The notion that human-like biological organisms
have evolved on their own from earlier ape-like
life forms is incorrect.
 Although breeding of farm animals and dogs, for
example, is possible, humanity will never find
physical evidence that the human biological
organism evolved through natural selection from
previous ape life forms on this planet.
 It is simply a hypnotic lie designed to prevent
humanity from remembering its true origins.
 In fact, human bodies have existed for billions
of years in various forms throughout the
universe.”

 Airl himself relates that he has once worked as an
engineer in a biological laboratory tasked with
preparing new life forms for, among other things, to
uninhabited planets.
 According to Airl, “the majority of genetic material
is common to all species. For this reason, most of
the work was based on the manipulation of genetic
blanks that were able to produce life forms suitable
for each planet type.
 When a new life form is introduced, its biological
interaction with other original life forms on that
planet is monitored and possible problems are solved
and corrected.
 In some cases, changes are also made to the planet’s
habitat. This does not happen often because shaping
the planet is much more complex than making
changes to an individual life entity.”
The photo is said to
present EBE (Extra-
Terrestrial Biological
Entity) called Airl, who
survived from the Roswell
accident.

 After Airl moved to another mission a long time
ago, one of his former colleagues said the
laboratory in question has also supplied life
forms to the planet Earth.
 “Life forms had to be supplemented because the
war in this part of the Milky Way had destroyed
most of the species on the planets of the solar
system about 70 million years ago.
 Transforming the Earth into an ecologically
interactive habitat was an enormous project
and required a great deal of professionalism.
 The project involved experts from almost every
biotechnology laboratory in the galaxy to assist
with the project.”

Lähde: Hall, Brian, Evolution Principles and Processes
The extinction of dinosaurs on Earth took place approximately
65-70 million years ago, when, according to Airl, most of the species
on the planets of the solar system were also destroyed in a war.

 Airl imparts that “Earth scientists still believe that the
theory of evolution explains the existence of all life forms on
Earth.
 The theory is simply put not true.
 The reality is that the aforementioned laboratories in the
galaxy have created all life forms on Earth and other planets
in this universe as well.
 How could millions of completely different non-related life
forms living on Earth and in the Seas be explained?
 The theory of evolution does not take into account the
phenomenon of biodiversity.
 Evolution through natural selection is a science fiction.
Species do not accidentally or evolve into another species
without genetic manipulation, although human textbooks
suggest so.”

 Darwin's theory
 The birth of life
 Synthetic chemistry and evolution
 Origin of information
Conclusions

 “Our universe is an
extraordinary place that
appears to be fantastically
well designed for our own
existence.
 This specialness is not
something that we can
attribute to lucky accidents,
which is far too unlikely.”
Leonard Susskind
Cosmologist
Father of string theory

 ”It would be very difficult
to explain why the
universe should have
begun in just this way,
 except as the act of God
who intended to create
being like us.”
Stephen Hawking

 ”The real issue is, do
the laws of physics and
chemistry in our
universe permit life to
come from non-life?
 All of our scientific
observations are
indicating that the
answer is NO.” Jake Hebert
Dr. of Physics
University of Texas at Dallas
Jake Hebert: A Universe from Nothing? https://www.icr.org/article/universe-from-nothing/

“In conclusion, evolution is not
observable, repeatable, or
refutable, and thus does not
qualify as either a scientific
fact or theory.”
Dr. David N. Menton
PhD in Biology
Brown UniversityIs Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law?—or None of the Above?
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-theory-fact-or-law/

 “Darwinism has become our
culture's official creation
myth, protected by a
‘priesthood’ as dogmatic as
any religious curia.”
Nancy Pearcey
HBU Apologetics
Professor
Source: Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology,“ p. 23

 ”Stephen Meyer’s thoughtful
and meticulous book ’Darwin’s
Doubt’ convinced me that
Darwin has failed.”
 “The ‘Deniable Darwin and
Other Essays’ by David
Berlinski is also essential.”
Claremont Review of Books
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE
David Gelernter
Professor of computer
science at Yale University

New Scientist,
January 24-30,
2009

 One of the world’s most influential
philosophical atheist of the 20th
Century, Anthony Flew concluded
2004 that some sort of intelligence
or first cause must have created
the universe.
 After decades of insisting belief is a
mistake, he announced that he
accepted the existence of a God.
 “My discovery of the Divine has
been a pilgrimage of reason and
not faith.”

Physicist
Sir James Jeans
 ”The stream of knowledge is heading
towards a non-mechanical reality; the
universe begins to look more like a
great thought than like a machine.
 Mind no longer appears to be an
accidental intruder into the realm of
matter…we ought rather hail it as the
creator and governor of the realm of
matter.
 Give up and accept this inevitable fact,
the universe is intangible, mental and
spiritual. ”

"All matter originates and
exists only by virtue of a
force which brings the
particle of an atom to
vibration and holds this most
minute solar system of the
atom together.
We must assume behind this
force the existence of a
conscious and intelligent
mind.
This mind is the matrix of
all matter.“
- Max Planck

Denying the truth does not change the facts
A Lie runs until it is overtaken by the truth

 Berlinski, David: Problems with the theory of Evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ElA0--JNg
 Deane, Ashyane: Voyagers I - The Sleeping Abductees
(2011)
 Deane, Ashyane: Voyagers II – Secrets of Amenti (2002)
 Callinicos, Alex: DARWIN, MATERIALISM AND EVOLUTION
- A review of D C Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea,
(London, 1995)
 Darwin, Charles: Origin of Species” (1859).
 Easterbrook, Greg: Wired, February 2007, 108.
 Gates, Bill: The Road Ahead, Penguin: London, Revised,
1996 p. 228
 Gelernter, David: Interview,
 Gitt, Werner: In the beginning was information
 Jeanson, Nathaniel: Cell Biologist: Let's Replace Darwin
by Studying DNA and Genetics,
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/october/cell
-biologist-lets-replace-darwin-by-studying-dna-and-
genetics
 Kenyon, Dan - Steinman, Gary: Biochemical
Predestination
 Kenyon, Dan: in Darwin’s Demise (White, Joe –
Comninellis, Nicholas, 127
 Lloyd Pye: Where did we Come from, Mysterious Alien
Origins of Mankind
 Mayer, Stephen C.: Evidence for Design in Physics and
Biology
 Meyer, Stephen: Darwin’s Doubt
 Morris, John: The Real Nature of the Fossil Record
 Oparin, Alexander: The Origin of life
 Pearcey, Nancy: "Creation Mythology,“ 23
 Prigogine, Ilya: From Being to Becoming Time and
Complexity in the Physical Sciences
 Robinson Peter: Mathematical Challenges of Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution,
 Sagan, Carl: "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia
(1974 ed.), 893-894.
 Shcherbak, Vladimir: The Arithmetical Origin of the
Genetic Code
 Spencer R. Lawrence: Roswellin avaruusolennon
haastattelu
 Tomkins, Jeff: Article https://www.icr.org/article/rna-world-paper-
retracted
 Tour, James: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y
 Biologist explains scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2grcHPo8oDQ
 Disclaimer: All material and information in this presentation
including quotes, photos, paintings are presented for non-
commercial and educational purposes only.
 More info: www.myquantumtransformation.com

Evolution theory and science eng.12.1.2021

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (14)

Similar a Evolution theory and science eng.12.1.2021

Similar a Evolution theory and science eng.12.1.2021 (20)

Último

Último (20)

Evolution theory and science eng.12.1.2021