27. It is wrong,
for example, to assume that a complex structure or biochemical
process can only work if all its components are present and
functioning as we see them today.
Well,
let's look at this: A completely independent nucleic acid system
controls the intended life processes. "If there are 100 of
named, precisely defined nucleotides, how many times does chance have
to try to create one, and only one, with a specific structure?
For
100 nucleotides, there is a probability of 10/158 /minus/ that 100
different nucleotides, but the same 100, will give rise to an exact
nucleic acid part. If the distance between the earth and the sun is
expressed in millimetres, it is only 10/12ths of a millimetre. What
is 158 in relation to this? An unimaginable number. It's about the
diameter of our galaxy in millimetres. And if the probability of
something is 1/10 of 158, it's ZERO! Suppose you have 100
nucleotides. You happen to hit that structure on the first try. So
what? You have one piece. And there should be tens of millions!
Pretty sure it will never happen again.
The
random formation of nucleic acids with a precise structureit can not
happen! Without it there is no material life structure. And nucleic
acid is only one of the tasks, you have to make proteins, hormones,
sugars, fats, everything. This is the chemical picture of living.
There can be no coincidence behind causal events!" /(Miklós
Baumann biochemist: Evolution or Creation - Bumann Miklós: Creation or creation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVcPGUrgMNg
The
design of life functions by DNA - the linking of nucleotides - is
complex enough to assume that it has a guiding intelligence. And then
where is the complex functional complexity of the cell and their
programmed organisation in comparison? Evolution, with all its
after-the-fact possibilities built into the DNA, cannot even move
when all of this should be operational. To this the evolutionist
hysteria says that it is wrong to assume the presence of the
necessary components for function.
Evolution
is trained by DNA to carry out molecular program instructions, for
which it has been given the tools, not developed the tools after the
fact, If these components are not there, what does evolution's
after-created species-evolution mechanics produce? Zero performance
under the microscope, on closer inspection.
The
subsequently selected mutational, random benefits of copying errors
in the DNA program would provide the basis for evolution, because
without mutation evolution cannot exist! Where does the evolutionary
process get the possibility of mutational divergences /sequence
changes of genetic letters/ from, which it subsequently uses as a
tool?
Any
subsequent mutation /sudden change in the heritable material/ cannot
create the genetic base in which the mutation first takes place,
which would be the imaginary engine of such evolution, the raw
material for which it would provide.
Evolution
can only work if all its components are present.
He says it is
wrong to assume that a biochemical process can only work if all its
components are present. Evolution takes place in the biochemical
organism. They claim that the biochemistry of all living things on
Earth is incredibly similar, but if all the components of evolution -
by which it works - are not present, how can it work? Even its own
functioning is questioned by materialist philosophy. It's such an
/soccer/ own goal that it even tears the net apart!
Topic
area
27: Then why do we have the complex structure and all the components
of the biochemical process that make the process work, if the process
works without them? Then what and by what we see functioning is
completely superfluous. If you open up the bonnet of a car and take
out some of the parts inside and everything works fine, then the car
is carrying, say, ¼ of the total load unnecessarily.
If
one assumes that the complex system works even if it is not complex,
then one is cutting the wood from under the tree, because then it
must also apply to evolution, because it also works - or does not
work - according to a complex system of reproduction, mutation,
variation, natural selection, heredity. Which one do you pick that
still works?
28.
Complex biochemical systems can be built from simpler systems through
natural selection. Thus, the "history" of a protein can be
traced through simpler organisms.
The
problem is that there are no simpler systems, only degrees of
complexity. And natural selection cannot apply to organisms in which
it happens after the fact, i.e., to the initial organisms that are
genetically programmed to adapt to environmental changes.
So
the organisms that first undergo a selection process are
pre-selection organisms. He calls these simpler systems. If organic
molecules are so complex that their formation cannot be explained by
random, spontaneous, unplanned processes, then what kind of simpler
system is the complex biochemical system, as an organic cell, built
up from - and by natural selection?
The
cell is the most complex and elegantly designed system ever witnessed
by man. The billions of biochemical molecules inside cells behave
like incredibly intelligent beings. Not only does it have the ability
to code intelligently, but it also has the ability to copy code, to
make protein from code, to take the various steps of cell division,
to take up and process nutrients. Even the simplest cell is full of
mechanical structures, microrobots.
Even
the simplest cell is extremely complex, and many thousands of
researchers have spent decades trying to understand how it works.
Even the simplest cell contains a level of design and technology that
surpasses human science and implies a level of intelligence greater
than that of humans!
These
supposedly simple cellular systems make up the tissue as a complex
biochemical system, which is an organisation of many similar cells.
Except here, the complex becomes even more complex /cell, tissue,
organ, organ system, organism/, and if the complexity that is below
cannot evolve on its own, how do you think the even more complex can?
When an important step in evolution happens, it turns the event into
a series of small steps. Really?
But
it didn't happen: "...the chances of a nucleic acid /DNA = the
genetic material of living things/ being created are quite minimal -
ten to minus 158." The shutter on spontaneous generation is
closed, and from here only evolutionary fantasy runs riot at a
tsunami level and scale. But how did things happen? The way we
explain it!
And
how do they explain it? All
life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived
roughly 3.5 billion years ago, and is, according to Darwin, the
"universal common ancestor" of all living things today.
Studies of protein evolution suggest that the evolutionary
relationships of proteins that preceded it can be mapped.
He
says the "history" of the protein can be traced. Traceable
in the sense that you can observe how more complex complex complexes
work, but not how they evolve from each other in an ad hoc,
spontaneous way, but you can link the events into a single
evolutionary process. Like when you take a picture of a prairie every
10 years, first you see nothing but a wasteland, then more and more
houses in each frame, and finally a city. Then you realise that they
evolved from each other. As the slides appear on the self-propelled
slide projector. This is what evolutionists preach.
Things
that need to be created separately and precisely joined together,
through incredible planning and execution, they believe, will
themselves evolve into a single spontaneous self-organising process.
It is precisely the spirit behind the processes that they deny, but
of course they do not deny the cobbler behind the shoemaker's tree,
because then their shoes would never be made.
Dr.
Michael Denton calls /this/ "simply
reason",
i.e., /which/ is an insult to intelligence! J. Craig Venter talked
about humility in his article in Live Science and Phys.org: "We
show how complex life is even in the simplest organisms." "In
this respect, the results humble me." Jesse
Emspak: Tiny Artificial Life: Lab-Made Bacterium Sports Smallest
Genome Yet, Live Science Contributor, March 24, 2016 - Malcolm
Ritter: Microbe with stripped-down DNA may hint at secrets of life
March 24, 2016/ http://phys.org/news/2016-03-microbe-stripped-down-dna-hint-secrets.html
Otherwise,
proteins are built on genetic instructions, and all further
evolutionary possibilities are limited, influenced and controlled by
them. So if you want to know the architectural qualities of
evolution, look in the genes and the specific patterns of
thermodynamics, the rules are written there. And that there are still
stubborn unicellular organisms that have not submitted to the
philosophy of evolution.
Topic
area
28: How can there be a difference
between a complex and a simple system if both are systems? Then you
are not building a system, you are adding complexity. The more
complex one system is than another, the more information it contains,
which provides the complexity. To increase complexity you need to
create system components. And if you create system components, they
all have to be incorporated into the system you are building, and
until you incorporate them, how does the new system work?
How
do you build another system from one system - virtually without
adding genetic information? Where does it get the genetic information
surplus /systemic organs, legs, wings, cellularly matched function
applications/? How can tracing a story happen without an increase in
story events? Amoeba to human, microbe to microbiologist? There is
only as much difference between making up a story and making a claim
happen as there is between fiction and reality.
They
add the story because they have the imagination to do so, but system
building requires existing parts, which natural selection selects if
they are part of a functioning system, but does not create because
that is not its function. Natural selection does not pick out those
that are not there, but passes or filters out those that are. It is
not the usher who fills the theatre, but only lets in those who have
a valid ticket for the performance.
29.
Jawless fish have simpler haemoglobin than jawed fish, which in turn
have simpler haemoglobin than mammals.
/As
a truck has bigger and wider wheels than a car. But it didn't evolve
from that, it was a different design, a different construction./
Topic
area 29: If all complex things
are simpler than less complex things, how does this /degree of
complexity/ affect the process that goes into them, rather than the
amount of parts involved?
30.
Complex molecular systems can evolve in many different ways. Natural
selection can combine parts of a system for one function at a time,
and then recombine those parts with other component systems at a
later time to create a system with a different function. Genes can be
duplicated, altered and then amplified by natural selection. The
complex biochemical cascade that results in blood clotting has been
explained in this way.
The
combination of parts of a system with other component systems only
happens by itself in evolution. In any industry, this is planned with
precision, but the planning, in their view, has no raison d'être.
Speaking
of reunification. Evolution claims that complex biological structures
can evolve through simple changes to perform new functions that
accumulate over time. These new cell types, organ structures and
functions increase the fitness or reproductive success of the
organism. So what are they made of? By reusing existing tissues, they
claim, by repositioning existing body parts. However, every single
organ that exists today was a finished organ in its time. In its
time, in its environment, it served a function that helped the
individual to survive.
So
where did the existing body parts come from that were already
finished? The first vertebrates, including early mammals, laid eggs.
The ad hoc existence of egg laying triggers the development of the
placenta. By the same analogy, computing evolved from room-sized
setups in the 1960s to computer screens as small as a clock face. The
room size of the finished organ? Where did it come from? The
egg-laying organism and its ability to lay eggs came from where?
Evolution
takes it for granted that certain things will evolve over time from
certain things, which will perform better as they become more
complex, and move up the evolutionary ladder to man.
But
what they build on, they just appear, and in a fully developed,
finished form. From then on, whatever develops is ready. There are no
gaps in the supply of functions.
But
let's realize that the species that are created from scratch are
manipulated /whose origins we have no idea about, they are not the
subject of evolution/, they are self-evolved. /As the Catholic vomits
on himself the cross, so the living being vomits on itself the
increasingly complex forms. It is no accident that they are
intertwined by evolution!/ Except that there is no question of
development, but of evolutionist conclusions drawn from the temporal
differences of the fossils they contain.
They
argue that it is an incontrovertible fact that living things have
changed or evolved throughout the history of life on Earth. And
biologists have identified and studied mechanisms that can explain
the main patterns of change. However, macroevolution has never been
observed because it requires a statistically significant level of new
genetic information. But because variation/microevolution is such an
overwhelmingly proven fact, macroevolution must be as well. This is
what the whole evolutionary fantasy world is built on!
However,
there is no genetic change that would result in a statistically
significant increase in functional information /and the resulting
appearance of new creatures/! The genetic foundations have been laid
initially. To cite an example, "if reptiles don't have feather
genes, feathered reptiles cannot evolve."/Jonathan Sarfati/ If
there is no genetic information to supply leg functions, a fish can
never evolve legs, especially for terrestrial use, which are moreover
ready-made and passed on by natural selection. Adaptation and natural
selection are biological facts; amoeba-human evolution is not. /There
is a difference between the selection pressures of the moment and the
evolutionists' long-lasting pressures on living organisms.
Even
today, there are single-celled amoebas, they do not evolve into
anything else, especially not into humans. They have an information
base specific to their own species, they reproduce according to their
own species. They do not chase evolutionary dreams, like those who
believe that humans will evolve a beak - without, of course, having
the genetic information to evolve a beak.
Topic
area
30: Survival does not depend on natural selection, but on fitness to
survive. Selection is the judgement of the end or state of a process
in terms of fitness for survival, not the control of the process
leading to it. Since when is combining parts of a system for one
function and then later reassembling them with other parts to create
a system with a different function natural selection and not natural
design?
It
is common for people to select certain things, such as dogs of a
certain conformation or trait, to select a breed, but this is the
result of conscious selection. Since when does t. selection
consciously select, and not merely state whether something is or is
not suitable for survival? What does the replication, alteration,
amplification of genes have to do with overriding fitness for
survival?
The
task of natural selection is like the task of a jury, which grades
the performances that come before it. Which jury is the one that
collects the applicants, trains them, puts them in competition and
then judges them? There is no such thing in reality!
Where
did you get the system whose parts you would merge, anyway? Which
parts are you choosing to merge later, to the detriment of which
parts? What about the remaining system of the system that is not
merged /separated/? Will it be discarded? If a system works, why
touch it? How can you set aside some parts you think are good, later
combine them with other, useful parts for a better end result, and do
it all without consciously doing so?
In
effect, it attributes to the process of t. selection a method of
creation programmed into the genes, as if it were capable of acting
intelligently. Their point is to divert attention away from the
Creator and creation, and the brilliant genius of t. selection seems
to be a good tool for this. They do the clean work with it. But in
reality it is dirty work. Well, not by t. Selection…
31.
Similarly, evolutionary mechanisms can explain the origin of highly
complex anatomical structures.
/It is not the mechanisms that explain, it is the evolutionists who
explain, namely by letting their imagination run wild. There is
nothing impossible before them./
Topic area
31: Similarly, evolutionary mechanisms can
explain the origin of highly complex anatomical structures. /It is
not the mechanisms that explain, it is the evolutionists who explain,
namely by letting their imagination run wild. There is nothing
impossible before them./
It
is possible to explain the biological processes of life by applying
philosophy, but when the explanation is that the structures that are
in the process of being created appear in a self-evolving way in
historical time, completely independently of the demands of the
system, it is a denial that there is no knowledge behind it, only
ignorant credulity.
Evolution
itself is an easy-to-understand process, which means that living
things have a programmed ability to adapt to occasional changes in
their environment, just as humans wear different clothes in winter,
spring, summer and autumn. This adaptation is conscious in humans,
but programmed in living things.
Cells
have programs that read and respond to signals, even
program-controlled cars operate on a similar principle, but at a much
more sophisticated level. But it's the principles that are important,
the ones that relate to intelligence, design, and necessarily people.
And biological forms of life operate according to biological
principles, not according to consequences reducible to mere matter.
In
light of this, it must be stated that nothing in biological life
makes sense when viewed in the light of Darwinian evolution! How can
purposeless material processes explain the goal-directed operations
that we see taking place in living things. Even the cell with the
smallest genome known today /Mycoplasma genitalium/ is amazingly
purposeful, and when millions of cells function in interconnected and
coordinated harmony to sustain a particular organism, the cooperative
purposefulness of this system is so blatant that to deny this, to
willfully not recognize the guiding principle within, is evidence
against the very thing it is being used to do.
For
the principle of negation is against materialism, because it is the
spirit that speaks the negation, not the matter! Likewise, the
principle of evolution is also against materialism, because the
principle of life in it is dictated by the spirit in it, not by
matter. The operation of evolution only serves this life principle,
because it is created for it, it is tuned to it.
Evolutionary
mechanisms trace the origins of highly complex structures to their
inherent spirit, whose purpose is to sustain biological existence and
biological beings, which mere raw, unintelligent matter cannot do by
itself - unless it is done by an alien spirit that is removed from
it. That such an evolutionary qualification appears before us,
defended tooth and nail, shows that there is an alien spirit at work,
dominating and holding the scientific world hostage.
And
it is the same spirit that dominates the defenders of evolution, for
whom the evolutionary mechanism is not merely a programmed servant
tool, but a creative tool in its own right, while serving the spirit
that has given it this task. Therefore, the propagated form of
evolution cannot be divorced from the evolution of propaganda that
has been added and trained to it since Darwin.
The
Higher Mind has not tampered with matter /Fred Hoyle/, but has "gone
into matter", as it were, - it unfolds through material
existence, - it is no accident that the Bible speaks of God's
creation of the material world /time and space/ (cf. Hebrews 11:3),
since this is the means of what He willed and wills to accomplish.
And if one does not act upon this will, does not conform to it, he is
working against his own God-given potential.
It
is the will of man versus the will of God. The accusation that man
created God is opposed to the claim that God created man. The
life-sustaining force that unfolds in evolution proves the latter to
be true, for matter can overcome the inertia force within it only by
the will of an external force that is as intelligent and as
transcendental as existence itself, whose feet rest on the earth of
space-time events but whose spirit soars invisibly in the heavens.
32.
For example, the eyes may have evolved independently of each other
many times in the history of life on earth.
/But
how could they have evolved independently of other organs? Vision is
only one part of the whole organism /organ system/, and if it all
just starts to develop in slow mode, how does it survive its own lack
of development? And if this is the case with vision, what about
digestion for example? How did you figure out that you need an inlet,
an outlet, in the process of processing the food, utilizing it for
the body, etc. All of this in a ready-made form, of course. If there
is no transition between the functions that develop, then what kind
of development are you talking about if everything was ready to go?!
Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is not science, it's a loss of
eyesight!
Topic
area
32:
How can the means of vision be decoupled from the complex structural
system of which the eye is a necessary part, which opens a gateway to
the medium for which the structural system is directed, for which it
is created? There are so many kinds of eyes because there are so many
kinds of structural systems, each finding its place in its own
natural medium. Therefore, the eye cannot be separated from the
structural system in which it is embedded!
It
is precisely the existence of mutually independent eyes that proves
that mutually independent structural systems did not evolve from each
other - or, more precisely, were created - but are different from
each other, and function differently, adapted to different living
organisms. And independent functioning grains are precisely evidence
of independent systems, which are precisely the opposite of the
imaginary family tree that is supposed to demonstrate evolutionary
phylogeny, in which everything evolves from each other. Which is of
course contradicted by the many independent functions of the eye. For
independent eyes can only exist in independent structures.
33.
Eyes evolved over millions of years from simple organs that can
detect light. In such gradual steps, very different eyes have
evolved, from simple light-sensing organs to highly complex visual
systems.
/How the process began:
"The
human eye is a complex structure, but not unique - eyes have evolved
independently between 40 and 65 times in different organisms.
Single-celled organisms have so far been limited to the simplest
stage of eye evolution, the eye spot, which is nothing more than a
region of light-sensitive photoreceptor proteins that can distinguish
light from dark. But a unicellular plankton, Warnowiid
dinoflagellate, did not settle on the eyespot, instead the organism
evolved a miniature mimic of the multicellular eye." https://theophthalmologist.com/subspecialties/sight-in-a-single-cell
Ultimately,
he says, the body has developed a miniature replica of the eye for
itself. Genius, humans can also develop an artificial eye for
themselves. And then natural selection tests what it's come up with.
If it can see, it sells, but if it can't, it sells. After all, that's
how nature did it. It also endowed living things with eyes not yet
capable of seeing.
Darwin
says: "I
admit that the supposition that the eye, with all its inimitable
structures, e.g. for adjusting focus at different distances, or for
admitting different amounts of light, or for correcting spherical and
chromatic aberration, has evolved merely by natural selection, seems
absurd in the extreme." /Charles Darwin (1809-1882) Brithis naturalist, The Origin of Species, 1859,
Chapter 6, available at http://www.literature.org./
If
a lot of animal fossils are found in large pits at the same time, it
is evidence of evolution, that natural selection worked. At the same
time, touch organs also evolved as a result of reduced vision. And
theories of self-generation are also the result of impaired thinking.
Although some consider this to be the result of high level thinking.
Let's just say it's a matter of worldview perspective, which has
nothing to do with real science. Could it be that natural selection
will need more pits?
Topic area
33: What is the value of any organ in itself
if it is only sensitive to light, but deficient in all other senses?!
Gradualism must also be extended to the development of all organs,
from the simplest to the most complex systems, in gradual steps. The
gradual steps must also be coordinated with each other, and they must
all ensure immediate survivability.
This
is solved by /darwinian/ evolution by proclaiming: - all organs that
evolved in a mosaic, step by step, were ready immediately, there are
never any incomplete organs, never were. Therefore, they do not exist
today. And if today's are the model of the old - and today everything
develops gradually according to evolution - then this means that
evolutionary development means that everything is ready, just as
everything was ready. You mean - at the time of creation!
Evolutionary
changes occur in response to environmental changes in a
micro-evolutionary sense, which is no different today. If one does
not see this /or does not want to see it/, not only is one's vision
defective, but also one's whole thinking system, because everything
is connected to everything else!
The
reason Darwinian evolution is so popular and so viable in almost all
societies of the world is that it is based on an incredible variety
of explanations, often unclear as to what is meant by it, what it is
applied to and what it is not. For on many issues, evolutionists are
not in agreement with each other or with the claims of the official
textbooks they have written in the past, but they are unanimous in
their assertion that those who do not believe in evolution do not
believe in it because they do not understand it, and do not
understand it because their comprehension is below the necessary
level.
They
do not shy away from subjective personalism, and they back up this
influence with a public show of force, if when they also make use of
the personal positions of the scientific academies.
In
sum, the aim is to maintain the viability of the materialist world
system, because they refuse to give the public the right to decide
how the world is!? However, they cannot deny anyone the right to
investigate things, with the level of responsibility that everyone
feels towards themselves and their children, for what they are
building their present and the future it will lead to?Do they believe
the hypothesis of evolutionary theory or do they deny creation. It is
everyone's personal, sovereign right to decide. /who care about the
outcome of their own destiny.../
The
study was prepared using the following source:
https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4#22
***
Related
supplement
WHY
IS MACRO-EVOLUTION NOT POSSIBLE?
If
a given population /or any of its members/ is under selection
pressure, and in response to that, it adapts /obviously
unconsciously/ to the environmental change by managing the specific
situation /genetically mobilizing its inherent formal and trait
preprogrammed potentials/, and thus survives, what is the need for it
to engage in a continuous evolution beyond the given situation, with
no foreseeable time and outcome? If he has met the evolutionary need
for survival change, then he has met the challenge of the age, which
was precisely sufficient to counteract the selection pressures he
faced. But now comes the point:
-
If it has solved survival by microevolutionary /during the lifetime
of the species/ change, it has also made the need for its own
population to change beyond the species redundant, as it is not
subject to selection pressure. Because if it did, it could not
survive, but only if it produced macroevolutionary change beyond its
own species. But because it has survived /say by a simple change in
beak size as a member of the pintypopulation/, it has removed the
selection pressure on it, and that's the end of the story.
If
it has solved survival by microevolutionary /during the lifetime of
the species/ change, it has also made the need for its own population
to change beyond the species redundant, as it is not subject to
selection pressure. Because if it did, it could not survive, but only
if it produced macroevolutionary change beyond its own species. But
because it has survived /say by a simple change in beak size as a
member of the pintypopulation/, it has removed the selection pressure
on it, and that's the end of the story.
What
thus falsifies the macroevolutionary hypothesis of Darwinian
evolution is that there is no permanent selection pressure behind the
imaginary process that precipitates macroevolution. There never was
and never will be. Because if there is a very high selection pressure
/need to survive/, say if the environment becomes extremely cold and
cannot be solved by fur breeding /or some related change/ within its
lifetime, the population will go extinct. /See e.g. mammoths./ Hence,
all evolutionary change falls into the category of microevolution
within a lifetime.
In
short: selection pressure + lifetime adaptation = survival. Above
this , other than that, all other Darwinian speculation is in the
realm of fantasy and has no validity in real science.
***
SOCIETY
IN THE GRIP OF DARWINISM
Why
is evolution based on an explicitly intentional God-denying
philosophy? Because the atheistic scientist lacks the humility to
admit that God deserves the glory for the creation of the living
world, compared to which his creative knowledge is a worthless zero.
He cannot even create a blade of grass capable of living a life of
its own! Because to do that, you have to create the system in which
the blade of grass is viable. And this system is called a universe,
within it a viable planet, within it a complex ecosystem, within it a
living organism-specific genetic toolkit programmed by DNA
communicating with it. What does the atheist say: - that everything
has become meaningless on its own, because nothing makes sense,
especially human existence. What makes sense of everything is the
corruption, the lying and exploitation of others, the tyranny of
interest and the puffing of demagogic propaganda about self-conscious
humanist moral ideals. Darwin's
theory has well established the for this stinking intellectual morass
in which society is held captive by the state-sponsored dominant
paradigm of science.
"Humanism
is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other
supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to live
ethical lives of personal fulfillment for the greater good of
humanity."
/American Humanist Association/
"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 destination 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.
"Humans
cannot tolerate the conviction that the Universe and life are
meaningless. In fact, that is what science tells us. Meaningless in
the sense that there is no externally determined purpose or point in
the Universe. As atheists, this is obviously true for us. We
determine our own meaning and purpose."
/Jerry Coyne Jerry Coyne Professor of Biology, (2012), "The Odd
Couple: Why Science and Religion Shouldn't Cohabitate," Speech
to Glasgow Skeptics, December 21./
"The
whole genetic program is in the service of DNA, not of humans
themselves. We are merely temporary repositories of life-bearing
molecules. In this case the packaging, ourselves, is merely there to
be discarded."
/Rudi Westendorp, Dutch professor of genetics/
„The
cancer of corruption is developing. It is metastasizing.
It is
becoming more commonplace, more complex, more multi-layered, elusive
and ingrained.” /CORRUPTION:
MORE THAN A CANCER/ - https://www.transparency.org.uk/corruption-more-cancer
