Ten points to disprove darwinian evolution

 

1. The basis of the criticism of evolution is that SUBJECTS CAPABLE OF EVOLUTION CANNOT BE PRODUCTS OF EVOLUTION, because then evolution would create that which is capable of carrying out evolution. Living things involved in evolution cannot create the capability that is needed to start the evolutionary process. ^1.-2.

But if evolution cannot create its own ability, on what basis does Darwinian theory determine the subjects capable of evolution must be some kind of prokaryotic stem cells, not creatures created to reproduce according to their own sex (kind; Original Word: מִין - https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4327.htm), as the Bible describes?!

The Darwinian concept has no say in determining this! He who has laid the foundations of the capacity for evolution determines what foundations he has laid, it is quite obvious, one follows from the other!

2. Another problem is that GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT BE THE PRODUCT OF NATURAL SELECTION. Because without DNA /genetic information/ there is no division, without division there is no mutation, without mutation there is no natural selection. If one wants to explain the appearance of DNA /genetic information in the cell/ by selection or mutation, one presupposes the existence of that which one wants to explain the origin of.

How did the unchanged state before the genetic mutation get into the genetic code, if deviation from it is the very essence of evolution? If change is the point, how can the change initially cause the invariance from which it subsequently deviates? In essence, the information /DNA/ creates itself by a series of mutations that evolve in the DNA /genetic information/ that natural selection selects for. For if there is no mutation, what does selection select, but if there is no DNA, how does the mutation that natural selection selects arise?

3. Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma. "... this proposal, even if quite plausible, is only one facet of a much more general and difficult problem, perhaps, the most formidable problem of all evolutionary biology. Indeed, it stands to reason that any scenario of the code origin and evolution will remain vacuous if not combined with understanding of the origin of the coding principle itself and the translation system that embodies it. At the heart of this problem is a dreary vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of the extremely complex translation system before there were functional proteins? And, of course, there could be no proteins without a sufficiently effective translation system. A variety of hypotheses have been proposed in attempts to break the circle (see and references therein) but so far none of these seems to be sufficiently coherent or enjoys sufficient support to claim the status of a real theory.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/

The code translator and the duplicating machine are themselves coded. So the code can only be translated if certain translation products are used. So such a system must be fully operational before it can work at all. This means that it is impossible to build natural variations on small changes. The message requires a decoding and transmission machine, which is itself part of the stored 'message'.

This is the catch 22, there is a disk and there is a player, to play the disk you would need to build the player, but its description is recorded on the disk. This is where the science fails.

If the evolutionary basis is unproven, then on the unproven evolutionary basis, what kind of proven evolutionary process is taking place?

If proteins cannot exist without a sufficiently efficient translational system, then cells cannot exist, the path that leads to the first cell or cells cannot be followed!!! If the first cell does not arise from the inanimate, then there is nothing to manipulate. And if there is no first cell, then the philosophy based on this first cell is also a failure!

4. Understanding the evolution of eukaryotic cell complexity is one of the greatest challenges of modern biology. The prokaryotic-eukaryotic contrast is so great that it represents the greatest evolutionary break in the continuum of life, which is why the origin of eukaryotes remains one of the most puzzling, controversial and challenging questions in evolution. A huge gap exists between procariota-eucariotic type, which cannot be bridged by transitional forms, is only widely accepted because it is the most likely evolutionary hypothesis, not because of empirical evidence. "... The question of eukaryotic origin is one of the most enduring mysteries of modern biology."  https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199941728/obo-9780199941728-0108.xml

"The origin of the complex organisms called eukaryotes - which include all animals, plants and fungi - is one of the greatest mysteries in biology" - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/lost-world-reveals-new-chapter-in-evolution-of-life

"The origin of multicellularity, the step from a single cell to trillions with differentiated functions, is one of the most mysterious episodes in the history of life on Earth ..." - https://ellipse.prbb.org/we-dont-know-why-there-are-genes-with-multicellular-functions-in-unicellular-organisms/

5. For evolution to create from a stem cell any previously non-existent living being, any qualitative property, any complex structural structure, to do this, the evolutionary process MUST be carried out in a precise, REQUIRED MANNER, BUT THIS IS NO LONGER EVOLUTION, IT IS SELECTIVE BREEDING, AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT NATURE HAS SUCH A CONTROLLED APPLICATION OF SELECTION PRESSURE. And in human breeding, success /fixation of preferred variants/ is guaranteed by the administration of this selective pressure.

Selection effects are subject to incessantly changing environmental influences over the long term, so the anatomy and stability of organisms evolving in myriad directions are also subject to these changes. This does not favour the creation of complex biological organisms and sophisticated structures, but the lack of constancy of selection forces hinders their formation! It is the process of evolutionary development itself, the emergence of the diversity of living organisms that evolutionary theory was invented to explain.

If there is no conscious selection in natural selection, then how do millions of different organisms evolve if selection occurs without control? How does the Asian wolf evolve into the Pekingese DOG if selection occurs without control? No way. The PEKIGNESE DOG was bred in the Chinese imperial court for temple guard duty. In both cases, conscious selection is required, over a very long period of time and in the same direction, until a particular creature is created, evolved.

A responsible breeder will focus on the welfare of the dogs and the preservation of the breed's genetic characteristics. He selects parents carefully, looking at both physical and mental qualities. It is important to pass on only genes that will carry on the strong characteristics of the breed. This, of course, requires expertise, numerous screening tests and appropriate husbandry conditions. The mating of dogs through breeding is consciously selected, otherwise the pekingi dog will not be created.

"... there is no more design in the operation of natural selection than there is in the direction in which the wind blows." /Charles Darwin/ "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it does not foresee, because it does not plan consequences, because it has no purpose in mind... Biological evolution is essentially a random wandering in the field of genetic possibilities." /Richard Dawkins/ This is the exact opposite of the process of human breeding. If artificial selection is a consciously guided process, natural selection cannot be a non-conscious, random process either, because then the process is not going on, nothing is evolving, but there is biological stagnation. It is not a species-specific evolution, but a fixation of what already exists.

Evolution has no purpose; it just happens, they say. There is no reason to suppose that evolution leads to any objective "improvement", - evolutionists say. The only thing that is constantly improving is the adaptability of individuals to their environment.

Where in evolution, then, is natural selection to preserve the genetic characteristics of a particular breed? The need to bring out the characters that are strongly characteristic of the breed? Nowhere!

If biological evolution is essentially a random wandering through the field of genetic possibilities, what has this random wandering got to do with the preservation of the genetic characteristics of a given breed?

If evolution doesn't design consequences, then what were they bred for in the Chinese imperial court if not for temple-keeping consequences? The offspring of all living things always regress to the parental type. Evolution by natural selection is perfectly suited to this. But it is not appropriate for the evolution of palotapinchis. Then how would it suit the evolution of millions of organisms with different anatomies and characteristics? It is not!

Since when does the development and maintenance of the genetic characteristics of a breed coincide with the effort to adapt to a changing environment, which is reflected in a continuous improvement of its adaptability?!

If the strategic goal of living organisms is survival through immediate adaptation, then the continuous development and building of an anatomical feature of a complete structural arrangement that did not exist before must be a completely different strategic goal. After all, an improvement in adaptability must occur immediately, but a new structure must undergo a long process of evolution, with the development and maintenance of genetic characteristics appropriate to that structure, otherwise the anatomical structure and trait specific to that organism will not be created. This then ensures the survival of that particular organism through adaptation.

If someone wants to get from one point to another point hundreds of kilometres away, and always takes the best quality road at every junction, what guarantee is there that they will get there? Then the goal will be to choose the best road and not some imaginary destination. And any best quality roads will lead to ever-changing destinations because the quality conditions are always specific to a particular section of road, rather than being built to some distant, undefined central destination.

But the millions of different organisms in the living world correspond to millions of different destinations, and if "the only thing that is constantly improving is the adaptability of individuals to their environment", how can so many organisms come into existence with such a strategy of instantaneous adaptation? They could not have been created by any means, but had to be created individually, and then adapted to the environment using their genetically programmed variability.

According to Darwin, natural selection did not consciously accomplish what man consciously accomplishes in artificial selection. This is not science, it is blind faith, deception, fraud, deception. IF SELECTION IS NOT DIRECTLY DIRECTED, THEN NOTHING IS EVOLVING. And so many other farmed plants and animals. In the same way, conscious selection is required in natural selection, but IN NATURE, THE DIRECTION AND SCOPE OF SELECTIVE CHOICE CHANGES CONSTANTLY, BECAUSE THE EVOLUTION IS NOT DIRECTED.

The evolution of species to reach humans has taken place over four billion years through an unlikely series of events. It is a kind of lottery, in which life has drawn the right number a million times.

What Darwin believed was impossible. What Dawkins believes is impossible. Reality itself disproves it. Darwinism proclaims pseudoscience.

Darwinism eliminates design, and for the Darwinist, the elimination of design is science. Evolution is only the apparent essence of evolution. But the essence is what it expresses: the denial of God!

6. The natural environment of an organism "selects" for favourable traits that provide a reproductive advantage and cause evolutionary change, as Darwin described. This gives the appearance of purpose, but in natural selection there is no deliberate choice, nor environmental stability.

The selection only benefits the designed shape, half-formed shapes are biologically worthless, equilibrating selection eliminates them. Darwinian selection prevents them from forming.

The initial stages of setting up any new body are a frightening waste. only when the organ is functional can we begin to talk about the selective advantage of the organ with an organ over the organ without.

This could not wait for millions of years for them to acquire the anatomical endowments necessary for survival, and the ability to manage them well, by selection pressure. It sounds good that they evolved the skills and the necessary anatomy for themselves. But how can you survive until you have the skills to survive?

Evolution by natural selection occurs when environmental pressures favour certain traits that are passed on to offspring. And what if it doesn't? In addition, selection can only operate on the genetic variation available, so the effect of selection pressure is essentially limited.

If fluctuations in environmental selection pressures alter the life cycles and cellular immune systems of plants and animals - which can lead to the expansion, decline or extinction of some populations - how does evolution build from the ground up a system whose developmental stages must ensure viability at every moment?!

But it is not complexity that questions evolution in the first place, but integrated complexity. Living things are multifunctional; they are capable of many complex things at once. evolution cannot accurately create this by its painfully slow step-by-step approach to the evolution of life.

7. Evolution does not begin by weighing what already exists /!/, but by weighing what did not exist before!

The question is therefore not how microevolution works, but the origin of the subjects of macroevolution in which microevolution takes place. These are two different things /origin study-function study/, which cannot be confused, but must be separated! If evolution describes changes in properties, why is it used to determine the origin, which has nothing to do with it?!

Darwin's main assumption was that, primarily through variation and natural selection, all kinds of different organisms could arise naturally on their own. In reality, however, he was only discovering limited biological principles, variation within a species, and not those dealing with macroevolution /change from one species to another/.

Adaptation and specialisation are fundamentally quite different things from macroevolution.

Isolation of evolutionary factors and genetic drift do not answer questions about macroevolution. darwin inferred not only subsequent racial diversity from formal variation, but also racial origin, although the two are two quite different things.

8. Natural selection cannot select for things (for mutation) that are not there. an organism that does not have coding genes cannot evolve one at random because the coding genes are not there. natural selection is real, but it can only work with genes that are already present. evolution can only work with organisms that are already capable of evolution!

A Chinese menu can never be built from the components of Hungarian dishes, if the components are not in the kitchen. A wing cannot develop without genetic information guiding its construction. If an artificial dog is programmed to bark, it will never meow if it is not programmed to meow.

And if the Design Intelligence is the basis of life and living beings, then He tells us through genetic control what and how it can be built from the foundations, not a specifically materialistic approach followed by academic science! And the genetic code guarantees the reproduction of the same species, not the development of new species.

Evolution not only questions God's way of working in a sin-ravaged world, but also changes it, falsifies it, by replacing the adaptive variability of species living side by side with the evolution of species from each other. The former is an everyday occurrence, the latter /evolution of all species from a single stem cell/ an untestable fiction, a suggestive delusion, a common fraud!

9. According to the evolutionist claim, the functioning of all living things is based on the same mechanisms, despite their extraordinary chemical complexity, which would be unthinkable if there were no distant relatives. It is supported by evidence from a wide range of disciplines, including genetics, which shows that the DNA of different species is similar. [“… DIFFERENT SPECIES ARE Descentally Related.” - Darwin: The Origin of Species]

A bat wing, a mouse forelimb, and a human arm serve very different purposes, but they have the same basic components The similarities arise because all three species share a common four-limbed vertebrate ancestor.

- Then the symphonies are also related to each other, since they are based on a similar or even the same notation system? On such a basis, all written works (lyrics or prose) must be related to each other, because the same grammatical rules are applied to all of them and letters are also used as material tools.

As the legendary pianist Lang Lang once said, "Reading music is like reading a book. It is a skill that opens up a world of possibilities." So does the world of possibilities mean that every symphony and book has a common ancestor that evolves from each other? Universal DNA has nothing to do with the Darwinian philosophy of evolutionary development from one species to another!

10. "The concept of a tree of life is prevalent in the evolutionary literature. ... Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things, and we need to treat them as such, rather than extrapolating from macroscopic life to prokaryotes... the belief that prokaryotes are related by such a tree has now become stronger than the data to support it. The monistic concept of a single universal tree of life appears, in the face of genome data, increasingly obsolete.

This traditional model to describe evolution is no longer the most scientifically productive position to hold, because of the plurality of evolutionary patterns and mechanisms involved. Forcing a single bifurcating scheme onto prokaryotic evolution disregards the non-tree-like nature of natural variation among prokaryotes and accounts for only a minority of observations from genomes...

Ultimately, the plurality of evolutionary patterns and mechanisms involved, such as the discontinuity of the process of evolution across the prokaryote-eukaryote divide, summons forth a pluralistic approach to studying evolution.” /Eric Bapteste, Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things - he holds a PhD in evolutionary biology and philosophy of biology. Director of the CNRS - https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-4-34

The root of the universal phylogenetic tree is the first stage of cellular evolution, when the developing cell became sufficiently integrated and stable against the erosive effects of horizontal gene transfer for true lineages to exist.

At a certain point in evolutionary history, the cells we know today must have arisen from some ancient form of biological organization, about which science knows nothing. so what the universal ancestor was and how it produced the first lineage are pivotal biological questions.

Could this be evolution caused by natural selection? Hardly, because it doesn't start here, but where does the ancient cell come from? You cannot descend from the prokaryote, anyway, if it came first, where did it come from?

Perhaps the ancient cell was created by evolution caused by natural selection? No, because then there would have been evolution before the ancient cell, but evolution is only possible if it has subjects in which it can manifest and take place. Therefore, the first ancient cell that has the ability to reproduce is similar to the giraffe that is tested by natural selection and then natural selection can operate there, leading to evolution.

But this evolution does not answer the origin of living things, but only the origin of evolutionary change. The microevolutionary events of changes below the species level have nothing to do with the formation or development above the species level, because it does not provide an answer to the origin. won't you tell me where ancient cells come from?

Since neither the prokaryotic-eukaryotic cell, nor the ancient cell standing at a gaping distance from it /on which the tree of life is based/ builds itself from the inanimate /the alleged evolution of the genetic code and eukaryotic cells is a mystery to science!/, therefore the foundations are necessarily the they are laid down by creation.

The cause of evolution is not natural selection, it is merely the tool of evolution, but this tool is also not suitable to explain the origin of those ancient organisms whose characteristic changes we see taking place in everyday life.

In the end, evolution /as a mechanism of adaptation through natural selection/ serves creation. not a creating element, but a maintaining element. He is a second violinist in the symphony that the creator God has determined for him.

Source:

1.-2. "Evolutionary units have the "trick" of reproducing, they have heredity, they have heritable 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 evolutionarily, because they did not then have the necessary properties." /Eörs Szathmáry - http://www.c3.hu/~tillmann/konyvek/ezredvegi/szathmary.html

SUMMARY

1. The origin of evolutionary capacity is not in evolution, and the extent to which evolutionary capacity can provide development is not in evolution.

2. The origin of genetic information cannot be explained by natural selection, because selection arises from information that already exists, and if there is no information to begin with, there is nothing to select from.

3. The origin of the genetic code is one of the greatest mysteries of modern life sciences. Every living cell is controlled by information stored in DNA, which is transcribed into RNA and used to make protein. It is a very complex system, and any one of these three molecules requires the existence of the other two. The copying is much more accurate than pure chemistry can handle - only about 1 error in 10 billion copies because there are editing /correction and error correction/ recovery machines that are again encoded in DNA. DNA carries the information, but it cannot utilize it, or even replicate itself, without the help of RNA and protein. /The instructions for building RNAP are themselves encoded in DNA. But DNA could not be transcribed into mRNA without the elaborate mechanism of RNAP. However, until RNAP is fully formed, the coding will not work at all because it is unable to get past first base./

The essence of Darwinism is that the boat of genetically encoded universal LIFE is adrift aimlessly in the ocean of existence without oars or oarsman. In comparison, the engine of the boat of LIFE /functional precision of DNA/ is an absolute luxury! The question is, how did meaningful information spontaneously emerge from incoherent garbage? Since when did dead matter have the inherent desire to come alive and dance in a million different shapes?

4. "The gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is the largest known evolutionary gap. There is no room here to go into the full maze of the recent debate about the origin of eukaryotic cells; suffice it to say that the picture seems blurrier than it did 20 years ago... The origin of the first heritable replicators is still an unsolved problem. This transition is not evolutionary in itself, because without heritable replicators Darwinian evolution is not possible." /Eörs Szathmáry: Towards a theory of major evolutionary transitions 2.0/

The eukaryotes were not thought to have evolved from prokaryotes/bacteria/ or archaea, but evolved from all three unknown ancestors. If a single ancestor evolved in three different directions, it would explain how the three lineages could have substantial similarities, yet there is no direct evolutionary relationship between them. The problem, however, is that this model is motivated less by scientific evidence than by the belief that evolution is true. Not only does the data not suggest such an evolutionary arrangement, but the data do not reveal any specific evolutionary pathway. We can interpret the data according to evolution, but the expectation that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes has not been fulfilled.

5. ^***The survival of the best-adapted and the evolution of a complete anatomical taxon from the most primitive level do not coincide. For example, if someone wants to achieve more milk yield in his herd, he will mate the best milk producing bulls with the high milk yielding /unrelated/ female cows and not those with the most healthy parameters for survival, so the strategic goal does not coincide. This process will be repeated generation after generation to gradually improve milk yield.

In the same way, in nature, the immediate survival of the most productive is the goal of natural selection, not the long-term evolution of a previously non-existent organism with specific anatomical and character traits. And the belief in a global self-evolutionary system is based on the assumption that the survival of the fittest is the path to the complete evolution of a particular systemic trait organism (of which there are millions in nature).

6. Selection only benefits the pre-structured form; the incomplete intermediate forms are biologically worthless and are wiped out by equilibrative selection. Darwinian selection would not only leave the structure in question unresolved, but would have prevented it from emerging.

The initial stage of the creation of any new organism is a frightening waste. Only when the organ is already functional can we begin to talk about the selective advantage of the organically endowed individual over the organless one.

7. Evolution does not begin by measuring what already exists /!/, but from where do we get the things that were not there before? Evolutionary factor isolation and genetic drift do not answer the questions about macroevolution. Darwin inferred not only subsequent racial diversity from formal variation, but also racial origin, even though the two are two entirely different things. If evolution describes changes in traits, it cannot be used to determine origin, which it has nothing to do with!

8. Natural selection can only work with genes that are already present. Natural selection acts on the genes already present in the population to "select" the useful ones. In this way, natural selection works with the genetic base already present in the population.

A cheetah can run faster if it has "faster" alleles - but if there are no faster alleles /possible gene variations/ in the population, evolution will not occur. And if Designer Intelligence is the basis of life and living things, then He tells us through genetic control what and how the basis can evolve into, not a specifically materialistic approach followed by academic science! And the genetic code guarantees the reproduction of the same species according to their sex, not the evolution of new species /e.g. cheetah/ from some ancient cell of unknown origin!

9. Universal DNA has nothing to do with the Darwinian philosophy of evolutionary development from one species to another, just as the existence of the same notes in different symphonies is not evidence that they evolved from each other.

10. The microevolutionary events of changes below the species level have nothing to do with the events of evolution or development above the species level, because they do not provide an answer to its origin.

Since the tree of life based on the hypothetical ancestral cell does not build itself up from the inanimate by natural selection /because it would then have to first create its own evolutionary capacity from which it subsequently builds up everything/, the foundations are necessarily laid by creation.

Ultimately, evolution /as a mechanism of adaptation by natural selection/ is a species-preserving mechanism, not a means of the purposeless evolution of different species over millions of years, used to justify an explicitly atheistic/materialistic worldview.

* * * * *

Addendum to point 5 - Darwin's theory offered an alternative to creationism, since if species evolve from other species, then the Bible's claim that God created species after their own kind and man in his own image is not correct. However, in order for any living creature with a racial anatomical characteristic to evolve from an ancestral cell, the subjects must be selected according to the racial characteristic of the type of species that evolves. Natural selection, however, does not select the subjects, but selects the most viable subjects to preserve those already present, so that the best adapted of them survive and maintain the species line. And when does the increasing adaptation of a living organism to its environment and its selection for species coincide?

Which natural selection selects for is the one Darwin said "... in the operation of natural selection there is no more design than in the direction which the wind blows." Varietal, perhaps? Selection for the development of a breed? If there is no purposefulness in it, then it is not selecting for breed character, like a man who selects for breed character in breeding while discarding those that do not fit the breed character.

A breed trait would have a chance to develop and be preserved if that breed trait were specifically the best fit for the environment at any given time, but in a given situation, survival may be based on a myriad of other criteria, such as preferred body shape, age-appropriate development, health, etc. And then natural selection would select the subject for that, not for an imaginary breed trait.

So there are light-years between natural selection for survival and selection for breed, which implies that selection to be better adapted to their environment has nothing to do with the pseudoscientific basis and background of millions of years of phylogenetic evolution that evolutionists explain by natural selection. That said, what this dilettante evolutionist says is particularly stupid: "...it is no longer appropriate for literate people to doubt the fact of evolution." /Vilmos Csányi/

2009 marks the bicentenary of Darwin's birth, but as Phillip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, elegantly put it, Darwin's ideas will eventually end up in the dustbin of history: „In all the history of the twentieth century, three thinkers have been prominent influences: Darwin, Marx and Freud... Yet Marx and Freud failed... I am convinced that Darwin is next in line. His failure will be the greatest of the three." /Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 113/.

How does the evolutionist put it?

"If there are atoms, and there is a way, there will be molecules; and if molecules are in a warm, humid place, sooner or later they will become elephants." /P.W. Atkins in Genesis p. 17./

Question: how does natural selection breed, for example, the elephant (from an imaginary stem cell whose origin is not even known, but on which Darwin bases the evolution of the phylum) if selection and mating by theoretical training is out of the question in natural selection?!

Develop an elephant from a single cell. This can only be done by selective breeding (in theory, by inference). This is the process of artificial selection, or breeding out, in which the selection pressure is specifically controlled, as in all other human breeding. And in nature, there is no breeding process, no directed selection pressure, that controls the development of a given organism to full maturity. Therefore, what Darwin claims about phylogeny is a great big crock of nonsense, pseudo-scientific credulity, mental schizophrenia.

Whether or not it's taught in universities, it's taught because it's the scientific paradigm, because we live in a godless, materialistic world where this doctrine is shoved down the throats of the young students. And if you can only selectively breed elephants from a single cell, i.e. consciously, then nature is incapable of selectively breeding the same elephant from a single cell by cell reproduction, and to claim that it did is not science, but a mockery of intelligent creation.

The same evolutionary pseudoscientific claim is accompanied by the moral nihilism that is inherent in evolution:

"We are children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At its root is nothing but corruption and an unstoppable wave of chaos. The goal is gone; only the direction remains. This is the bleakness we must accept as we look deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe." /Peter Atkins (1984), The Second Law (New York: Scientific American), p. 200./

So, the theory of evolution identifies humanity as a child of chaos, a bleakness we must accept as we look deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.