Darwinian evolution is a huge hoax
- When Darwinism officially fails, there won't even be enough backbone for those promoting the philosophy of evolution to apologise to the misled masses. -
Because there are two types of selection, natural and artificial.
Artificial selection, as a human-supervised breeding, always selects subjects according to breed characteristics. Animals and plants with desirable characteristics are systematically favoured for reproduction. For example, the Holstein-Friesian cow was once bred in this way.
Darwin used this method to evolve the biological life we see today from some ancient cell of nature of unknown origin [LUCA]. But this is a theoretical claim, a credulity, nothing more. For in nature, there is no selection by breed (conscious selection of subjects with advantageous traits), but survival and reproduction of individuals of living organisms best adapted to the environment, the two being entirely different strategies.
"This creature has been named LUCA, which is an acronym for Last Universal Common Ancestor" - https://hellomagyar.hu/2023/05/07/az-vilag-gyakorlatilag-osszes-elolenyenek-kozos-ose/
In nature, spontaneous selection of the most adaptable subjects takes place, with the aim of survival and not of achieving some strategic goal. The sick, the stunted, the underdeveloped are at a disadvantage compared to the healthy. The survival of the most viable individuals is not the same as the survival of the individuals necessary for the evolution of a species.
But if you always select the most viable ducks and mate them, you will not get red-billed ducks, but healthy yellow-billed ducks, because you have not selected for red-billed ducks.
The basic question is: - Where did the first subjects of the initial organisms, already capable of evolution (evolving), come from, which could not have been created by evolution, because then evolution would have created its own ability by evolution?!
"Evolutionary units must have the "trick" of reproducing, they must have heredity, hereditary variation... The basic problem is that the first evolutionary units could not have arisen by evolution, because they did not have the necessary properties at that time." /evolutionary biologist Eőrs Szathmáry./
Where do the abilities come from to carry out the alleged evolution? How can evolution ensure this when it depends on their existence?! So the subjects of evolution must first be created. Darwinism has already failed here!
In an ever-changing environment, where will the necessary environmental selection pressures come from to produce the millions of organisms that are not yet fully evolved and fully developed? So it is not a question of inheriting the more favourable traits of a single organism, but of evolving all the favourable traits of millions of organisms that did not exist before!
Observable evolution therefore refers to the adaptability to the natural environment of individuals of already established species within their own species. This is evolution and nothing more. And behind this biological process is controlled genetic programming! This requires a genetic programmer - a conscious intelligence who has revealed himself in the Bible.
Henceforth, the Darwinian theory of evolution, which relies on natural selection for the spontaneous evolution of all individuals in the biological world, is doomed. It is the biological law of nature itself that has failed.
ABIOGENEZIS
The scientists' theory of abiogenesis has failed , the reason they still believe in it as a gap god is because they reject the real God. The scientific literature has not yet come out of this labyrinth, but wanders around in it, puffing out a series of acrobatic chemical analyses, but the end is always the same, total bankruptcy. The credit for the feat of spontaneously generated life belongs not to matter but to the illusionists.
Life is a materialized expression of a living, invisible spiritual entity, but it is not spontaneous. Moreover, the medium of life must be created along with time and space, which is the sustainer of life. Thus, there is a need for life-bearing living beings and for conditions to ensure the continued viability of life-bearing subjects. There are so many interwoven threads in this area that cannot be provided by spontaneous events.
The Miller-Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate biochemicals as they formed, so they were not destroyed by the sparks /UV/. Without the traps, even the small amounts obtained would not have been produced.
"To summarise. The experiment set up by Miller produced the largest amount of tar... The best Miller-Urey chemistry... doesn't take us very far on the road to a living organism. A simple mixture of chemicals, even if enriched with a few amino acids, is no more like a bacterium than a small pile of real and meaningless words, each written on a single piece of paper, is like a complete work of Shakespeare." /Shapiro, Robert Origins pp. 105, 116./
"The statistical probability that the organic structures that characterise living organisms and the most precisely harmonised reactions occur by chance is zero." /Ilya Prigogine (chemist-physicist) - Two Nobel Prize winners in chemistry I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, 23-28./
The scientific /materialist/ explanation for the origin of life on earth is not tenable.
"It is essential for life that nucleotides are joined together, but the chances of a nucleic acid (DNA) being created are minimal - ten to the minus 158th power (to be clear about the ratios, ten to the minus second power is one hundredth). This could not have happened by chance, without conscious intervention...
Suppose you have 100 nucleotides. You accidentally hit that structure on the first try. And then what? You have one piece. And you need tens of millions! Pretty sure it will never happen again. The random creation of nucleic acids with a precise structure is NOT POSSIBLE! Without it there is no material life structure. This frog must be swallowed by materialism. And nucleic acid is only one of the tasks, we have to produce proteins, hormones, sugars, fats, everything... It takes nearly a hundred thousand nucleotides to make a non-poisonous snake into a poisonous snake, for example... This is the living chemical picture. There can be no coincidence behind causal events!" /Prof. Miklós Baumann, biochemist, Creation or creation?/ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVcPGUrgMNg
"In fact, as Miller's experiments have shown, it is not difficult to create amino acids. The much bigger challenge is creating nucleic acids - the building blocks of molecules like RNA and DNA. The origin of life lies in the origin of these "replicators", molecules that can make copies of themselves... "Even if it can produce amino acids (and nucleic acids) under soupy conditions, this has little or no effect on the origin of life." /Scientists complete a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origin of life - https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/scientists-finish-a-53-year-old-classic-experiment-on-the-origins-of-life
"However, this proposal, even if plausible, is only one side of a much more general and difficult problem, perhaps the most formidable problem in all of evolutionary biology. In fact, it goes without saying that any scenario of the origin and evolution of the code will remain empty unless it is combined with an understanding of the coding principle itself and the translation system that embodies it. At the heart of this problem lies a terrible vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of a highly complex translation system before it became a functional protein? And of course, there can be no protein without a sufficiently efficient translation system. Various hypotheses have been proposed to break the circle... but none so far seems sufficiently coherent /consistent/... Nevertheless, these and other theoretical approaches fail to reconstruct the evolutionary past beyond the threshold of complexity required to produce functional proteins, and we must acknowledge that the specific ways of crossing the horizon are currently unknown." /The origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPIRIT AND MATTER
The act of writing down an idea, of explaining it, of communicating it, of putting letters in order, has already gone beyond the limits of physics, because there is no physical law that can cause the creation of mental information. But information is created and transmitted by a material carrier /material structure/. The mystery of life is not why the molecules on which life itself depends are so complex (although that is a great mystery). Nor is it even the complex assembly of parts that living things use (although that is also a great mystery). No, the greatest mystery of life is how the information on which life is built came to be.
Information is the specially organised structure of genetic material itself. The written text is the specially organized structure of the assembled letters. The sequence of letters contains the information that I can read. Did someone write this or did it happen by accident? Does the paper create the information? Does the ink create the information? Does the ballpoint pen create the information? Does the structure of the material itself create the information? No! Does the structure of the substance /the substance itself/ contain the information? No! And genetic information comes from the structure of genetic matter /physics and chemistry/? Yes - Says the materialist position.
In the universe, it is not the existence of simple material structures that is interesting, but their organisation, which is non-physical at the moment when the level of organisation surpasses the property of matter. The complexity of the universe points to the fact that the material parts have undergone a mental polishing that matter cannot do by itself.
WHAT IS SUPERNATURAL?
The origin of all things is non-physical at the moment when the level of organization surpasses the property of matter. If a knife, a spoon or a fork cannot be derived from the material that makes it up, then its existence is supernatural, because neither metal nor wood naturally creates these objects.
The language of chemistry is not a formulating language, it is a writing language. Chemistry succeeds in doing what it is told to do, but it is not a language for self-expression. In a simple correspondence, invisible ghosts communicate with each other, and neither paper nor letters have the ability to make grammatical mistakes or correct them.
If a poem, short story or novel, or the grammatical rules themselves, do not follow from the letters themselves as components that make them up, or if a functioning car does not follow from the components that make it up, and a complex living cell does not follow from the inanimate components that make it up, then in particular the complex, coordinated functioning of the 40 trillion or so cells that make up the human body does not follow from the components that make it up. Do we come from stardust like Mona Lisa's smile comes from paint molecules?
So if the message /information/ is not the message of the letter, but of the user, then the universe is not the message of the parts that make it up, but of the user, since the level of organisation far exceeds the quality of the matter it contains.
Materialistic thinking cannot eliminate the thinking spirit. Then it would have to start with itself. Regardless, in the seas of old there were millions of millions of years to "assemble into text" proteins from amino acids. If information is not material, then the whole materialism fails. However, if materialism is true, then ultimately paper writes the book, it's just a matter of time. Well?
The universe is sought to be derived from its matter by materialistic scientists to eliminate the ghost, which is necessary if the existence of the parts alone cannot explain it. The fact that the origin of the design spirit is unknown does not in itself disprove the necessary existence of the design spirit.
"Understanding the operating mechanism of a Ford car is not an argument that Mr. Ford does not exist. The existence of this mechanism is not an argument that there is not a designer who designed this mechanism." /John Lennox, mathematician/
Max Planck, Nobel Prize-winning physicist /founder of quantum mechanics, along with Albert Einstein, laid the foundations of modern physics/ says that matter is a derivative of consciousness: „All matter arises and exists only because of a force that makes the particles of the atom vibrate and holds this smallest solar system of the atom together. Behind this force we must assume the existence of a conscious and intelligent spirit. This mind is the matrix of all matter." /Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech in Florence, Italy (1944) (in Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, No. 1797)/
Romans 1:19-20 For that which is known of God is manifestly in them; for God hath revealed it unto them: For the things which are invisible in God, even his eternal power and deity, have been seen from the creation of the world through his works, being understood of them; so that they are without excuse.
"It is the deep emotional conviction of the presence of a supreme reasoning power manifesting itself in the incomprehensible universe that shapes my conception of God.... "In the laws of nature there is an intelligence so supreme that the reasonableness of human thought and system is a pale reflection in comparison!" /Albert Einstein: Mein Weltbild. - Published by C. Seeling, Zurich-Stuttgart-Vienna 1953. 21.1/
But
he could no more accept a personal God than he could put down his
pipe. For his passion was incompatible with the biblical injunction
to cleanse oneself from all bodily and spiritual impurity.
(2
Corinthians 7:1)
Behind the whole universe is spiritual information, held in check by laws, behind the information is spirit, behind the spirit is consciousness, behind the consciousness is Person, behind the Person is God.
Christians await the 2nd coming of Christ and the new world order in which truth dwells. And eternal life in youthful bodies, prosperity, perfect health, on a cleansed earth.
Isaiah 11:1-9 A rod shall shoot forth from the stem of Jesse, and a shoot shall spring up from his roots. The Spirit of the LORD rests on it: the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD. And he shall delight himself in the fear of the LORD, and shall not judge by the sight of his eyes, nor judge by the hearing of his ears. He judgeth righteously the poor, and judgeth justly the poor of the earth. He smiteth the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he slayeth the wicked. Justice shall gird his loins, and faithfulness his hips. Then shall the wolf dwell with the lamb, the leopard lie down with the kid of the goat, the calf, the young lion, and the fatted ox be together, and a little child shall keep them. The cow and the bear will graze, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The toddler plays at the viper holes, and the barely weaned child reaches out to the poisonous snake's hole. They shall not hurt nor destroy anywhere on the mountain of my holiness, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the LORD, as the sea is covered with water.
Darwinian evolution destroys this biblical hope. If you believe the Darwinian theory of evolution to be true, which makes God superfluous, it will destroy you. Be aware of the real facts. Do not be manipulated by materialistic science.
Shooting at god dummies in the theme park might seem like fun, but the true God is waiting for them at the exit.
The only thing atheism by choice adds to death is to make it final.
o o o o o o o o
[Appendix on the fundamental flaws of Darwinism.]
Darwin argued that natural selection explains how a wide range of life forms evolved from a single common ancestor over time.
Darwinian evolution can explain variation within species - not the existence of the original parent species. The evolution of posterior species /species variations/ cannot be extrapolated to the initial evolution of the original species, because they are not derived from organisms that already existed, but from organisms that did not exist at all before. These are scientific facts! Darwin's reference to finches has nothing to do with the point, because evolution does not start with finches.
Point 1 - The basis is that there is no living thing to evolve in the beginning.
"The
origin of life is the deepest mystery of all science.
What is known about the origin of life remains a mystery; the deepest
remains when chemists and biochemists ask.... There is a huge gulf
between the simplest living cell and the most complex mixture of
naturally occurring inanimate chemicals. We have no idea when, how
and where this gap was crossed...
There is the RNA-world
hypothesis, which posits that before life was based on DNA and
proteins, the world had only RNA, which acted as both a replicator
and an enzyme. But in fact, there is no good theory that explains how
we can go from a soup of amino acids and nucleotides to a living
organism in a world of RNA locked in a cell wall."- Prof. Dr.
Cebo Daniel, Cyberbiology Security and Artificial Intelligence
Biology Researcher - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/opinion-origin-life-biggest-unanswered-question-biology-cebo
"In fact, as Miller's experiments have shown, it is not difficult to create amino acids. The much bigger challenge is creating nucleic acids - the building blocks of molecules like RNA and DNA. The origin of life lies in the origin of these 'replicators', molecules that can make copies of themselves... "Even if it can produce amino acids (and nucleic acids) under soupy conditions, this has little or no effect on the origin of life." /Scientists complete a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origin of life/ - https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/scientists-finish-a-53-year-old-classic-experiment-on-the-origins-of-life
Where did the first subjects of the initial organisms capable of evolution come from, that evolution could not have created, because then evolution would have created its own ability through evolution!!!
"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 have the necessary properties at that time." /Eörs Szathmáry - http://www.c3.hu/~tillmann/konyvek/ezredvegi/szathmary.html"
"Darwin never actually talked about the origin of species in The Origin of Species." /Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Epuilibria (1985), p. 33./
Point 2 - Mutation does not create the genetic base in which mutation provides the raw material for the evolutionary process to unfold. The posterior mechanism of natural selection cannot be applied to the origin of DNA, because if natural selection is the child of evolution - it can only be validated by posterior division - it cannot also be its father - which creates the possibility of division!
A further problem is the attempt to explain the origin of genetic information by natural selection. But 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 the very thing whose origin one wants to explain.
How did the unchanged state before the genetic mutation get into the genetic code, if deviation from it is the essence of evolution? If change is the point, how can the change initially cause the invariance from which it subsequently deviates? In essence, information /DNA/ creates itself through a series of mutations that develop in DNA /genetic information/ that is selected by natural selection. 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?
The code translator and the replicating machine are themselves coded. So the code can only be translated if certain products of translation are used. So such a system must be fully functional 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'.
That's the catch 22, there's a disc and there's a player, to play the disc, you'd have to build the player, but the description of how to do that is on the disc. This is where science fails.
"... despite a long history of research and the accumulation of considerable circumstantial evidence, none of the three main theories about the nature and evolution of the genetic code is clearly supported by the data currently available." /The origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal mystery/ - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
"All models of the origin of life, be it the first proto-metabolism or the early informational self-replicative model before the RNA/RNA world, meet the same impasse:... there is no naturalistic mechanism to guide objects and events towards ultimate functionality. There is no insight, motive, foresight or momentum to integrate physico-chemical reactions into a cooperative, organized, pragmatic effort." /Dr. David L. Abel -https://www.academia.edu/23926569/Is_Life_Unique
Point 3 - Understanding the evolution of eukaryotic cell complexity is one of the greatest challenges of modern biology. The prokaryotic and 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. There is a huge gap between the prokaryote-eukaryote cell type, which cannot be bridged by transitional forms, widely accepted only 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 includes 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 concept of the tree of life is prevalent in the evolutionary literature... Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things and should be treated as such, rather than extrapolated from macroscopic life to prokaryotes... Belief in the existence of a universal tree of life, including prokaryotes, is stronger than the evidence from genomes to support it." /Eric Bapteste, Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things - PhD in evolutionary biology and philosophy of biology. Director of CNRS/ - https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-4-34
Point 4 - What does Charles Darwin say in his autobiography about how natural selection works? "... there is no more design in the operation of natural selection than in the direction in which the wind blows." What did Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking say about the same thing? "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it cannot foresee, because it does not plan consequences, because it has no purpose in mind... biological evolution is essentially a random wandering in a field of genetic possibilities." This is exactly the opposite of the process of human breeding.
Man consciously selects subjects for his strategic goal, but nature cannot consciously select subjects, because its goal is not the evolution of a particular organism, but the survival of a particular organism, and it selects subjects for that purpose /this tendency prevails/, so nature's strategic goal is to meet the challenges of an ever-changing environment immediately, and it selects the best suited ones for that.
In an ever-changing environment, where does it get the millions of necessary environmental selection pressures to the full development of the millions of organisms not yet fully evolved and involved in the evolutionary process? So it is not a question of inheriting the more favourable traits of one organism, but of evolving all the favourable traits of millions of organisms that did not exist before!
The questions are:
1. Where did the first subjects of evolutionary organisms come from?
2. Where does the genetic information come from, the faulty copying of which is said to be the origin of all biological life, because it is the engine of evolution? If everything comes from mistakes, what came from the initial, error-free state?
3. What kind of tree of life is evidenced by the initial cellular complexity whose origin is not known?!
4. The survival of the most viable individuals is not the same as the survival of the individuals necessary for the evolution of a species. How does natural selection, operating blindly, extract the millions of kinds of environmental selection pressure needed to fully evolve the millions of organisms not yet fully evolved?
5. If Darwin did not talk about the origin of species, what he did discover was microevolutionary adaptation. But what does this have to do with the origin of organisms in which evolutionary adaptation takes place afterwards?
Darwin concluded that environmental selection pressures adapted the finch's beak to the type of food it ate. This is about as big a discovery as realising that our pupils can dilate or constrict depending on the amount of light around us. In bright light, they constrict to prevent too much light from entering our eyes, while in low light, the pupils dilate to let in more light. So what does this have to do with where the eye, the pupil and the whole dimension of vision come from?
And what is the point of the whole universe, including human life, which evolutionists have blinded themselves to recognise?!
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences, which Charles Darwin understood perfectly well. 1) there are no gods worth having; 2) there is no life after death; 3) there is no ultimate basis for ethics; 4) there is no ultimate meaning to life ; and 5) human free will does not exist." /William Provine, atheist professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University (1998)/
[An atheist says to his wife: - "Darling, I love you very much, which otherwise makes no sense, because one's existence is ultimately meaningless and useless." - His wife says: - "Darling, I've washed your underpants so many times, which otherwise makes no sense, because washing is ultimately meaningless and useless. From now on, please take them to the laundry. What's the difference? Ultimately, both are equally pointless.]
"Humans cannot tolerate the belief 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." /Jerry Coyne Professor of Biology, (2012), "The Odd Couple: Why Science and Religion Shouldn't Cohabitate," Speech to Glasgow Skeptics, December 21.
A society grown on Darwinism also questions the meaning of its own existence.
Darwinism is the Institute for the Blind, where biologists sworn to deny God guide unsuspecting visitors to Darwin's bust with the white cane of science.
Megjegyzések
Megjegyzés küldése