The fall of Darwin's stem cell theory

 

A man has been taken to the police because during a raid he was found to have hundreds of thousands of dollars on him, which he could not account for. They asked where the money came from. He said that he had no money at the beginning, but he had made the huge amount from a single one-dollar coin, multiplying it and over time it became a lot of money. All it took was one dollar coin. Because in the hands of a clever man, money grows, all you need is an initial capital.

The interrogating officer was interested in how a dollar could make so much money, but interestingly enough, he didn't ask how the one dollar had made him rich, but where did he get the one dollar if he didn't have any money to begin with? And he started telling the story.

Well, I was sitting in my room with the window open and I didn't have a penny, I didn't have any money at all. Euddenly I heard a noise, and I looked out the window. A traveling circus was passing by, and as they went by, I sat back in my chair and there on the table was my one dollar coin. I wondered how it got there, because it hadn't been there before. And then I multiplied that one dollar coin and it became hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The policeman became suspicious of this incredible story and asked, if he was standing at the window, how did he not notice the money flying past him? The man said that he might not remember it well, or it might have happened in another way. Because he has an aunt who lives on a certain street in town, and she might have sent him the dollar bill, he doesn't remember exactly, but that's how it might have happened. And then it wasn't hard to multiply the money.

The policeman left the room, but came back a few minutes later saying that there was no such street in that town, that the aunt didn't exist, and that he had sent her a dollar in an envelope. Why didn't you send him more?

The man said he might not remember rightly, but it could be that when he had no money, he had been staring at the moon late one night and praying to the heavens to help him, because he was starving and had no money to buy food. And in the morning there was money on the table, he only had to multiply the one dollar.

The police officer then became seriously suspicious, and stated emphatically that the point of your story was not how you multiplied the money, but where did you get the one dollar from? Because if there is no money, it cannot be increased in any way, so give me a concrete explanation of where you got the initial capital, the one dollar, because if you don't have a concrete answer to that, then the whole story is nothing but a lie! More likely he stole the money or robbed something, maybe a store or bank or armored car. Or maybe he killed someone for the money.

The person started to say that he hadn't stolen any money from anybody, that he had become rich on a single dollar, because he could multiply that money.

But the policeman was now loudly insisting that if you don't have money, you can't multiply it. And you can't make money out of what you don't have! And you can't prove where your money came from!

Well, yes, I didn't have any money, but somehow I did, you see, here are the hundreds of thousands of dollars that came out of that one dollar. And the policeman said to his face, with increasing vehemence, that the origin of the one dollar was a big humbug, and money does not come into existence by itself, no matter how much one may rant.

Please tell us clearly where the money comes from, because if you can't, then everything you say is a lie. Money cannot be created from non-existent money, someone has to create it. Did you forge the one dollar bill?

He swore that he didn't make the money, he didn't have the ability to do that, and how could the officer assume that, he an honest man, not a counterfeiter. Besides, it could been a miracle, because as far as he knows, there is a kind of spider in India that can weave metal thread and somehow it slipped across the border and nobody noticed. And then how come it didn't, weaving the yarn until he dropped the one-dollar bill from the ceiling. He just had to find it.

The policeman then questioned him emphatically as to why he thought he was stupid, when it was clearer than ever that money could only come from money, and therefore money had to have an origin, a handful of rice or a few nuts did not make a dollar bill, nor did a plain metal disk just happen to make a dollar bill. A coin is made by pressing together layers of different metals and then pressing the design onto a hot surface. It's a pre-planned process; no coin is created by accident.

So if you didn't have the money, you obviously stole the dollar bill, you hurt someone. And if you didn't have the initial funds, then you more likely stole or robbed the other money, so I'm arresting you until the matter goes to court. And since the person could not give a reasonable explanation for the origin of the one dollar bill or the other money that came from it, the case was tried and convicted. He must remain in prison until he can give a credible, realistic explanation for the origin of the money. And because he couldn't, the man has been in prison ever since!

This story is remarkably similar to the single-cell story of Darwinism. The Darwinian theory is based on the idea that a single primordial cell somehow arose from inanimate matter at some point and multiplied to the point where it became human. How the first life in the form of a cell arose, or even where it came from, is not known. And once it turned out that they couldn't tell, suddenly it wasn't so important to them, it just became important that all life evolved from this spontaneously generated cell. They say that the origin of life is not their business, only the multiplication of the cell according to evolutionary principles.

However, they also have ideas about the processes that led to the first cell, which they present in the same way as they do about the origin of the one-dollar bill in the story above. They don't know, but they have bold ideas that they are putting out in public.

In a recent study on the origin of the genetic code that leads to life, we assume [WE POSIT] is found 44 times and it appears [APPEARS] is found 22 times. /The evolution of the genetic code/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21541264.2021.1927652

THE UN SOLVED PROBLEM OF BIOLOGY - "Unfortunately, hypotheses about how ribozyme works DO NOT EXPLAIN how the Darwinian drive generates the genetic code between catalytic amino acids and their corresponding codons and anticodons." (2023 - On the origin of the genetic code - https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ggs/98/1/98_22-00085/_html/-char/ja

"LIST OF UN SOLVED PROBLEMS IN BIOLOGY - Evolution and the Origin of Life - The origin of life. Exactly how, where and when did life originate on Earth? Which, if any, of the many hypotheses is correct? What metabolic pathways did the earliest life forms use? How did the genetic code emerge? What was the molecular mechanism that allowed amino acids to associate with their triple codons? What biochemical pathways led from individual biobuilding blocks such as amino acids or nucleic acids to functional polymers such as proteins and DNA?"- This page was last edited on 31 December 2023 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_biology

As they say, the million-dollar question is: where did the one-dollar come from, whose reproduction resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars, and where did the first cell come from, whose reproduction eventually resulted in a human being with that many cells? That they know neither is fine, the cell multiplication theory is still out there, swelling and thriving with life. It is very popular!

Philosophy's proponents claim that biological evolution, regardless of the unknown circumstances of its inception, is a totally proven fact that is not among the unsolved problems because it has already been solved. Exactly when it (the protocell) evolved, or when God created it, is not known, but when they first appeared (already functioning) is not an unsolved problem.

So it is a proven fact that a single dollar that did not exist became many hundreds of thousands of dollars, although life did not arise from the inanimate. What was solved? When did the additional dollars created from the one dollar first appear…

Technically, it is understood to be the emergence of reproductive cells, read from microfossils of cyanobacteria, supposedly 3.5 billion years old. However, no cell capable of evolution can ever come into existence by evolution, because then the first cell capable of evolution would be created by evolution that already existed before itself.

"Evolutionary units must know the "trick" of reproducing, they must have heredity, hereditary variation."- https://24.hu/tudomany/2020/12/09/a-jovo-megmentoi-evolucio-szathmary-eors/

"The basic problem is that the first evolutionary units could not have arisen by evolution, because they did not then have the necessary properties." /Eörs Szathmáry - http://www.c3.hu/~tillmann/konyvek/ezredvegi/szathmary.html

If these evolutionary units were found /like the one dollar coin the man on his desk/, then it should also say how they got there. A statement like "totally proven fact regardless of the unknown circumstances of its beginning" cannot apply to the origin of the ancient cell.

The unknown circumstances of the beginning are not evidence of a beginning, but that they mean, we don't know how, but it certainly began. [I mean, that the spider started spinning the particular metal thread that produced the one-dollar bill.]

But that is very much part of the philosophy, there was a formation /from the inanimate/, though [WE POSIT] is found 44 times and it [APPEARS] is found 22 times in the proof text. And since it did come together on its own, it is a proven fact that it works. Because, after all, cell multiplication produced a human being, and the one-dollar bill grew into many hundreds of thousands.

Should we accept the growth of the one dollar into hundreds of thousands? The police did not accept it. Should we accept the reproduction of the ancient cell into a human? Most of the public, educated in the science of evolutionary biology, accepted it. They even seem to be happy about it. Because if God is the creator of the primordial cell, that immediately implies a moral obligation. Which is immediately rejected. 

So God should not create the genetic code, nor any kind of primordial cell, we are good for hundreds of thousands of dollars without knowing where the first one came from. That this is not a scientific position? Well, God creating it is not. So there is a subjective bias behind the scientific position? It is very possible! If we don't push it, there's no problem.

There is, however, a very different problem here, one that could upset this paper form, but more importantly, Darwinian stem cell theory of evolution. Namely, that there is no such thing as the gap god who created stem cells for the evolutionists, so that they could evolve what they want from them by natural selection. And so that many alleged god worshippers can think that evolution is God's creation tool. Because it is not!

For phylogeny (the directed organization of organisms) could occur if natural selection were to select for organisms worthy of reproduction on the basis of a species trait, until the species trait is established, after which spontaneous selection for the best adapted within the species trait could prevail in order to maintain the species.

Think about if all breeds of dogs were suddenly set free, what would happen? After a few generations, the breeds we know today, whose physiology has become extreme because of "fashion or other reasons", would probably not exist. All dogs would revert to their original type, and and would look pretty much the same.

The varieties would be merged into an average mixed breed with the most suitable characteristics for survival. It is likely that the dogs that would adapt and survive most easily would be those that have been manipulated the least. These 'foundation dogs' can be found, for example, among the packs of wild dogs in Puerto Rico, where stray dogs can be seen running in packs, and in countries where loose, wild-breeding, dingo-like dogs are found.

The philosophy of evolution is that "new species" evolve over time through the reproduction of better adapted individuals with more advantageous traits, while the species composition of the living world is constantly changing.

On the contrary, we can see that no "new species" are evolving, but that natural selection, the natural process of dogs reverting to the original type, supports the adaptation to an original standard basic species.

But the existence of the wolf species itself (Canis lupus), for example also , shows that the reproduction of better adapted individuals with more favourable traits does not lead to the formation of new species, but to the descendants of wolves becoming more sophisticated and better adapted to survival criteria. Even if they show variability, they do so within a stable wolf species, because they reproduce according to their sex, remaining wolves according to their species, breed and subspecies. Natural selection favours this process.

The Bible teaches that God created living creatures to reproduce according to their sex from the beginning, and created man separately from them, endowed with spiritual faculties (cf. Genesis 1:21; Matthew 19:4).

But more importantly, God created a world at creation that was free of sin, sin-curses, cruelty, misery and death. If animals were not created for eternal life, they were especially not created to eat each other alive if necessary for subsistence. In the beginning, animals and humans alike ate plants and fruits. (cf. Genesis 1:29-30)

So anyone who ascribes evolutionary development to God is maliciously slandering him, as it were, by tasking him to do so, to create a world in which the existing biological order is determined by the evolutionary adaptations, often full of terrible suffering, and which they show in order to survive.

The rigid atheists are also in denial about this, attributing nothing to God, nor attributing the becoming alive of the inanimate to any supernatural intelligent intervention. For them, the spontaneous coming to life of the inanimate is an unassailable dogma that it had to happen! There is no chance of God's existence in the science they have created by means that cannot prove God.

Whether it was created specifically for that purpose, or used for that purpose, is not discussed because it does not fit the scientific consensus. But it is good to argue that with this scientific background you can deny God intellectually whoever you like, just as you can argue on this basis that the origin of any literary text can be deduced from the laws of physics and chemistry, without the need for an intelligent background mind to dominate the information-bearing material of what is being said. Because inference is not part of science.

Yet, since when is inferring an intelligent background ghost scientific? It's a purely private matter that has nothing to do with science. Just as it has nothing to do with their often openly obnoxious conclusions that exclude God!

It is ultimately true, apparently, that this current evolution, geared to continual adaptation, is the order of biological existence. However, let no one deceive themselves, because a purported process of unknown origin is not evidence for the formation of a single dollar, which can be claimed as a dollar, and its reproduction into hundreds of thousands of dollars as a proven fact.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars do exist, and so do millions of them, as do so many living things. But there is no evidence whatsoever that the multiplication of a single ancient cell that must have evolved spontaneously gave rise to the entire biological world of life without strategic purpose, merely wandering in the genetic field of chance - as the Darwinian evolution hypothesis claims the self-replication by blind natural selection of an estimated 7.77 million species of animals.

While human breeding consciously breeds and selects for breed traits, not by introducing into the breeding process those best adapted to the general evolutionary theme, but by selecting individuals with certain traits that have the desired value!

And if there is no viable pathway to the first cell, then there can be no evolutionary basis, so what kind of evolutionary process based on proven stem cell reproduction is taking place on an unproven ancestral cell basis? What we can see and study is the variable shaping of organisms in response to changing environmental influences, while their viable reproduction according to their own sex is a pledge of their survival. But it exists as a result of God's creation order for the present sin-infested age. Exactly as the Bible says.

"For the created world has been subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in the hope that the created world itself will be freed from the bondage of corruption to the freedom of the glory of the sons of God." (Romans 8:20-21)

However, in God's very near new order, this evolutionary adaptation will no longer be necessary. The original order, the Edenic peace and harmony, will be restored to the eternal glory and praise of God, from which evolutionists are rigidly aloof.

This world system will end with a huge bang when the unbelieving world and its supporters are exposed at the return of Christ that what they have used against God was their entire evolutionary philosophy was false and was created specifically to express their dislike. On the contrary, then, it says the king appointed of God to those on his right hand:

 "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." (Matthew 25:34)

And then...

"They build houses and dwell in them, and plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build so that another may dwell therein; they shall not plant so that another may eat the fruit, for as the trees, so shall the life of my people be, and the work of their hands shall be consumed by my chosen.

They shall not weary themselves in vain, neither shall they give way to an early death, for they are the seed of the Lord's sacrifices, and their offspring shall be with them. And before they cry out, I will answer; they shall yet speak, and I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion as the ox shall eat straw, and the serpent shall have dust for his bread. They shall not hurt nor destroy anywhere on the mount of my holiness; thus saith the Lord...

And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid of the goat, and the calf and the kid of the lion and the fatling shall be together, and a little child shall keep them; The cow and the bear shall graze, [and] their young shall lie down together, The lion, like the ox, shall eat straw; And the sucking cattle shall delight in the hole of the viper, And the cattle shall spread his hands over the hole of the basilisk: They shall not hurt nor destroy anywhere on the mount of my holiness, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord /YHVH, HAHVEH, JEHOVAH/, as the waters cover the sea." (Isaiah 65:21-25; 11:6-9)