Was Darwin a genius or a pseudoscientist?

“Darwin's greatest achievement was to demonstrate that the ordered organization of living things is a natural process, the result of natural selection, and can be explained without recourse to a Creator or other external agent.” /Francisco Ayala, Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion/

Charles Darwin was a brilliant and influential scientific thinker, not a con artist, whose extraordinary combination of meticulous observation, tolerance for uncertainty, and persistent work ethic led to his groundbreaking theories of evolution by natural selection. While he was not a traditional "genius" in the mold of a physicist, his profound impact on science and his revolutionary ideas are universally acknowledged, with his work considered one of the greatest scientific books ever written.

Evidence of Darwin's Genius:

Revolutionary Ideas:

His work on evolution by natural selection fundamentally changed scientific thought and continues to be regarded as a pivotal idea in science.

Exceptional Mental Habits:

Darwin cultivated mental habits like meticulous attention to detail, tireless curiosity, and the ability to hold conflicting ideas in his mind without immediate judgment, which were crucial to his success.

Pioneering Research:

The decades he spent meticulously collecting evidence and developing his theories demonstrate an extraordinary dedication and intellect, according to National Institutes of Health (NIH). -  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2778975/

Enduring Legacy:

His theories, presented in On the Origin of Species, are still foundational to modern biology and have withstood the test of time.

Addressing "Con Artist" Accusations:

These accusations are baseless and contradict the historical record and widespread scientific recognition of Darwin's contributions.

There is no evidence to support claims that Darwin engaged in fraud or deceit regarding the theory of natural selection. His work and scientific integrity have been consistently praised.

Darwin's Intellectual Style:

Darwin's intelligence was distinct from that of figures like Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein; his strength lay not in innate mathematical ability but in his unique combination of traits and a meticulous, observational approach to science.

His ability to synthesize vast amounts of disparate evidence into a cohesive theory, rather than pure raw intellect, demonstrates his exceptional genius.

What's the problem with evolution?

A central organizing concept in biology is that life changes and develops through evolution and that all lifeforms known have a common origin. Charles Darwin established evolution as a viable theory by articulating its driving force, natural selection (Alfred Russel Wallace is recognized as the co-discoverer of this concept). Darwin theorized that species and breeds developed through the processes of natural selection as well as by artificial selection or selective breeding.

The problem

If, for example, it is not possible to breed Holstein-Friesian cows from the cows best adapted to the environment, which requires selective breeding according to breed characteristics, then since natural selection cannot select according to breed characteristics, how was it possible to breed countless basic types from an ancient cell group of unknown origin /LUCA/ with countless basic types—with special, completely different species-specific characteristics—with selection pressure whose direction and intensity /to use Darwin’s words in his autobiography/ was similar to the direction and strength of the wind? This was not possible! [If so, a scientific group should create an elephant from a handful of neutral cell clusters with selective pressure following the direction of the wind without selective breeding.They can't even create an egg! If they fail, throw Darwin's halo into the swamp, because he was not a genius, but a con artist!]

On this basis, it is completely ridiculous to claim that humans originated from the animal kingdom. With the same logic, we could also claim that since humans can play the piano, they shared a common ancestor with the piano. How long will society continue to be bombarded with such pseudo-scientific statements?

“People cannot bear the conviction that the universe and life are meaningless. In fact, this is what science tells us. Meaningless in the sense that there is no externally determined purpose or point to the universe. As atheists, this is obviously true for us. We determine our own meaning and purpose.” /Jerry Coyne, professor of biology, (2012), “The Odd Couple: Why Science and Religion Shouldn’t Cohabitate,” Speech to Glasgow Skeptics, December 21./

Perhaps this earthbound evolutionary obsession doesn't influence the average person's worldview, lifestyle, and occasionally their attitude toward committing crimes? It absolutely does! If you believe in evolution, you must believe that life has no purpose, no meaning, and no value. The universe, furnish with intelligence, exists in a completely meaningless way, its existence has no meaning.

In contrast, natural selection follows a very purposeful biological principle when it selects individuals best adapted to their natural environment and allows them to reproduce. However, it cannot select for species characteristics, which means that the initial differentiation of ancient cell masses into species /the specialization of cells, upon which evolutionary development itself is built/ is an impossible undertaking for meaningless biological processes.Bat it had to start sometime, if evolution as Darwin envisioned it is true.

Therefore, the basic types had to be created first—each with different, completely distinct species-specific characteristics—which were then able to adapt to changing living conditions /this is where evolution comes into play/, developing the variable internal and external characteristics with which their genetically programmed abilities endowed them. [The origin of the genetic program is an intelligent spiritual force, just as all other programs are created by intelligence.]

Attributing the variability of adaptation of living beings to the current environment, the development of their external and internal characteristics, and their age-related properties solely to evolutionary development based on natural selection is a completely erroneous philosophical position that has nothing to do with real science! The testimony of the official elite of evolutionary biology is fundamentally flawed and serves an atheistic worldview - with all its negative consequences.

Is the LUCA story knowledge or a statement?

We now know that all living things are descended from a single common ancestor, LUCA, the last universal common ancestor. - Evolutionary biologists claim. However, it is one thing to know something and another to assert it. However, the essence of this kind of evolutionary knowledge is not knowledge, but assertion. The essence of the knowledge of worldview philosophy is the assertion, which is asserted as knowledge. Like so many other things.

What is the evidence for the existence of the LUCA ancient cell? "Although fossil evidence for LUCA does not exist, its existence is widely accepted by biochemists due to the detailed biochemical similarities of all extant life (divided into three domains). Its characteristics can be inferred from common features in modern genomes." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor

Most of what is known about LUCA is inferred from the genes of living organisms. Genetic sequencing technologies allow us to compare the genes of different species. The similarities found serve as a record of our common heritage. Genes common to all organisms: These genes likely existed in LUCA.

So, what is the oldest classical music?

"The earliest fragment of sheet music is found on a 4,000-year-old Sumerian clay tablet containing instructions and tunings for a hymn honoring the ruler Lipit-Ishtar. But for the title of the oldest surviving song, most historians point to "Hurrian Hymn No. 6," an ode to the goddess Nikkal, written in cuneiform by the ancient Hurrians sometime around the 14th century BC. The clay tablets containing the melody were excavated in the 1950s from the ruins of the Syrian city of Ugarit. In addition to a nearly complete set of sheet music, they also contain specific instructions on how to play the song on a nine-string lyre." - https://www.history.com/news/what-is-the-oldest-known-piece-of-music

How old is the sheet music?"Artifacts show that sheet music began as rudimentary musical codes written on clay tablets by ancient Babylonians nearly 4,000 years ago. Elementary music notation was then developed by the ancient Greeks and Romans." -https://www.homeeddirectory.com/blog/past-present-and-future-sheet-music

In essence, musical notes are universal. "Musical notation, with its roots dating back to ancient civilizations, has evolved over centuries into the system we know today. It is a universal language that musicians worldwide can understand, regardless of their cultural or linguistic backgrounds. This universality allows it to transcend borders and unite people in a shared experience. " - https://www.musicnotes.com/blog/musical-notation-the-universal-language-of-expression/

Now, are we to conclude that because of the universal nature of musical notes, all existing musical works derive from a single common ancestor, the “Hurrian Hymn No. 6,”? Because it corresponds in musical language to the LUCÁ as the single common ancestor of all existing living things? That all subsequent musical works evolved from it? Or does the composer use the score to express the music, just as the shared genes in organisms indicate that living symphonies are written by genes? Does a common genetic or musical language also imply kinship? Hardly!

Whoever wrote the genetic language used it in all living beings. And whoever wrote the musical works used musical notation everywhere. The similar way of using them excludes common origin and kinship. After all, how are Beethoven's symphonies related to "Hurrian Hymn No. 6"? If they are not related at all, then living beings are not related to each other either, but are forms of expression of the same language according to the will of the one who uses it.

The scientific community takes the liberty of explaining everything according to its own preferences, thereby serving its own atheistic worldview. God does not exist, because if He did, all glory would belong to Him, and scientists would have to acknowledge and praise God. However, they are unwilling to do so because they want to live according to their own ideas without God.

The scientific community is therefore not impartial, but biased, keeping in mind its own advantages and the glory of its discoveries, which it wants to reap. The entire scientific world is based on the pursuit of fame.

The message of the Bible

“You are the Lord /JHWH/, even you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all that is on it, the seas, and all that is in them; and you give life to them all, and the host of heaven bows down before you.” (Nehemiah 9:6)

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (Revelation 12:9)

“I [Jesus Christ] am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” (John 10:9-11)

Belief in evolution - reward or consequence?

One would think that one chooses atheism, but one does not. Rather, atheism, like a powerful current of force, chooses a person based on his personality, as if sucking him in. Similarly, a mouse does not choose the trap, but rather the bait that attracts it chooses the mouse.

Proven facts or different perspectives?

A person's belief in Darwinian evolution is not actually determined by proven science, but by the mental disposition of the person, which results in him seeing Darwinian evolution as a proven science. It is precisely this mental disposition that he has in advance, which is only confirmed later, based on the perspective that he already has.

This is proven, for example, by two people with completely different perspectives, whose scientific qualifications are at a very high level compared to today's education - yet they claim exactly the opposite about the reality of the science of Darwinian development and evolution based on proven facts. Someone in this story is definitely sitting on the horse with his back! See: e.g. Richard Dawkins and who sees things called "proven facts" completely differently:

Dr. Tomislav Terzin, a doctor of biology, explains DNA and why it supports creation. -https://www.facebook.com/SDADeafChurchDownUnder/posts/dr-tomislav-terzin-phd-biology-explains-dna-and-why-it-supports-creation-this-vi/951705637085624/

Serbian researchers, intellectuals and academics have been signing a petition for weeks declaring war on “Darwinism” and the theory of evolution. This petition, which demands the removal of the theory of evolution from school textbooks, has been signed by 166 people. Surprisingly, one of the signatories of the petition demanding the “banning of Darwin” is Tomislav Terzin, a biology professor at the University of Alberta in Canada. The author of the unconventional book “Censored Scientific Discoveries”, which combines religion and science, holds “atheists” and “Darwinian dogmatists” responsible... - https://koha.mk/en/serbet-me-peticion-kunder-teorise-se-darvinit-mbi-evolucionin/ 

“Darwinism has no answer to the question of the genetic code. It has no answer to the question of the origin of the vast amount of information contained in DNA molecules... There is censorship in science, which stems from the fact that there are dogmas that cannot be questioned in any way... In the 20th century, science adopted the doctrine that one must be an atheist, that this is not in harmony with scientific facts or the human psyche... The Darwinian-atheist lobby is so powerful financially and has such strong media control that new knowledge cannot be published due to strict censorship.” /Tomislav Terzin, professor of genetics, molecular biology and developmental biology at the University of Alberta, Canada. Interview and in his book "Censored Scientific Discoveries". - He has given more than 600 lectures worldwide on the relationship between science and religion. He is also the author of several influential books that examine the intersection of faith and science./

Then, whether this way of seeing things is a reward or a consequence for each individual will become absolutely clear when the veil is lifted on the reason behind creation for all people who exist, have existed, or will exist. (This has been promised, by the way!) In any case, it is an extremely important sign if a person classifies his own existence among the total insignificances, or in the exact opposite place, among the distinguished ones blessed with his own intelligence, the origin of which is the intelligent spirit /in whose image he was created/ and not the unintelligent matter /from which, so to speak, he developed due to the self-organization of matter/.

If ethics has no ultimate basis,how can it exist in traffic policing?

Does expanding knowledge of the macrocosm and microcosm necessarily stimulate a feeling of total insignificance in humans, or is this merely a by-product of the evolutionary perspective? If this does not affect some deeply committed atheists, either in their lifestyle or their mood, does that mean it does not affect others either? Not even certain social strata?

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 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) there is no human free will.” /William Provine, atheist professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University (1998)/

Is this view a reward or a consequence, the burdens or joys of which must be borne by both the individual and society? And what about the excesses of this view, which liberate a certain segment of society to indulge in cybercrime and other forms of criminality? If ethics has no ultimate foundation, how can it exist in traffic policing?

“The Uniform Regulation of Road Traffic Regulations (abbreviated: KRESZ)[1] is a collection of traffic rules contained in a decree, legally known as the Joint Decree 1/1975. (II. 5.) KPM–BM, which “regulates traffic on public roads and private roads not closed to public traffic in the territory of Hungary”. Since 1988, the most basic rules of traffic have been contained in Act I of 1988 on Road Traffic.[2] The rules of the KRESZ are in many respects similar or identical to the rules of most countries with public traffic.” /Wikipedia/ 

Is the evolutionary defense of a system of power a guarantee of its truth? 

The fact that the so-called "mainstream scientific community" prefers Darwinian evolution and gives it a higher status is a consequence of its own chosen or acquired perspective. At the same time, the so-called religious community also prefers its own perspective within its own circles, in accordance with its religion, so there is no difference in this respect. 

That the scientific community /Scientific Academies/, especially the higher powers /the state power/ are in a monopoly position /from a power perspective this means a privileged, exclusively favorable position/, is not in doubt, but this is not the result of the existing natural terrain conditions, but the result of the fact that the rule over the terrain conditions has been conceded to the extent and for the time that the one conceding the terrain conditions sees fit. (cf. Luke 4:5-7)

This is not a simple force, but a force behind the entire universe. Max Planck, Nobel Prize-winning physicist and founder of quantum mechanics (he laid the foundations of modern physics alongside Albert Einstein), vividly pointed this out:

"As someone who has devoted his entire life to the purest science, the study of matter, I can say this much as a result of my research on atoms: matter as such does not exist! All matter is created and exists only because of a force that causes the particles of the atom to vibrate and holds together this smallest solar system of the atom. 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, Nr. 1797)/

If God does not dwell in temples made with hands,

then neither does he dwell in a world made by men.(cf. Acts 17:24)

Therefore, the position dominated by the scientific community is a social /spiritual/ dimension that covers the entire world, where the given person either feels good because he sees Darwinian development and evolution as a science based on proven facts /since this is what they are led to believe, with the argument that the origin of intelligent events can be found in unintelligent forces./. And there are indeed places /not a few/, where he can go. As a historical figure once said:

Matthew 16:18 And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock /whom you have confessed, that is, on myself/ I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[The Greek word "ekklēsía" means "community of the called out ones" or "assembly of the called out ones." This term refers to a community of believers chosen from the world, but originally in ancient Greece it also meant a political assembly of citizens.]

Entering here is called repentance /conversion/ in the Bible, which offers a completely different perspective: which is precisely the opposite of the total insignificance of one's own existence – the glorification of God, deepening one's service to Him, and even possessing the hope of eternal life, finding one's place and belonging in the company of God.

From here on, each person decides, according to their own individual position and temperament, whether conversion means freedom for them or prison, which they definitely want to go into or which they definitely want to stay away from. Here, therefore, the decisive moment above all is the sovereign personality of man.

Nevertheless, everyone is placed before a choice, whether they want it or not, because no one can avoid this choice. The message in which one must choose reads as follows:

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse: therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

Each person chooses what Life means to them, and what they will reap will either be a reward or a payment.

His choice means that he allows his personality to come to the fore, the force working within him chooses this or that. That is why the Scripture says that a person should resist the negative impulses within him, in other words, control the destructive desires of his own body.

The true choice means that a person is able to override their own personality traits that tend towards negativity.

Romans 8:12-13 Therefore, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh: For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

❗ ❗ ❗ ❗ ❗

Justified questions

- Nevertheless, there are justified questions for which the community that considers Darwinian evolution and individual development to be a science based on proven facts /despite the proclaimed evolutionary dogmas/ has no answers based on proven facts:

1. Where did the first subjects of evolution-capable organisms come from?

/They evolved from the inanimate by themselves, which is a philosophical, worldview position, without evidence!/

2. Where does the genetic information come from, from whose faulty copying /mutation/ allegedly the entire biological world emerges, because this would be the engine of evolution? If everything arises from the mistakes, what came into being from the initial, flawless state?

If program errors on an assembly line produce a saleable product (e.g. a car), then what does error-free operation produce – it does not produce any valuable product?

/The genetic code developed spontaneously through chemical processes, from which all known living organisms originated due to faulty replication. Nothing has been created from the original, error-free state. By the way, neither chemistry nor physics has ever written a textual message in which information filled with intellectual intelligence could be detected./

3. What kind of life tree does the initial cellular complexity, whose origin is unknown, prove?!

„Evolutionary units need to know that they are multiplying, they have inheritance, genetic diversity." - https://24.hu/tudomany/2020/12/09/a-jovomegmentoi-evolucio-szathmary-eors/

"The fundamental problem is that the first evolutionary units could not have arisen through evolution, since they did not yet possess the necessary characteristics." - http://www.c3.hu/~tillmann/konyvek/ezredvegi/szathmary.html

"The concept of a tree of life is widespread in the evolutionary literature... Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things and should be treated as such, rather than extrapolating from macroscopic life to prokaryotes... the belief that prokaryotes are related to such a tree has now become stronger than the data supporting it. The monistic concept of a single universal tree of life seems increasingly outdated in the face of genomic data." /Eric Bapteste, Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things - PhD in evolutionary biology and philosophy of biology. Director of the CNRS/ - https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-4-34

4. Survival of the most viable individuals/microevolution/ since when is it the same as the necessarily selective development of specimens of a given species with initial racial characteristics from a cluster of cells of unknown origin /macroevolution/? Where does blind natural selection get the millions of different necessary environmental selection pressures from until the full development of millions of not yet existing living beings participating in the development process?

/There is no directed selection pressure, nor is it necessary, yet the result is an end product as if blind evolution were capable of the results of selective breeding?/

5. If Darwin did not essentially talk about the true origin of the first species, then what he discovered was a microevolutionary adaptation based on natural selection. But what does this have to do with the origin of living beings in which evolutionary adaptation subsequently takes place?

Evolution affects already existing organisms, but it has no idea what the origin of already existing individuals is.

- The claim that Darwinian evolution is unable to select for traits necessary for the formation of species is incorrect, since natural selection is the fundamental mechanism of speciation, leading to the accumulation of traits that differentiate populations and ultimately create new species. -

The problem is that this applies to existing populations, not to the initial origin of species, because species populations did not yet exist at that time. 

Modern biology interprets this as a continuous process of gradual changes, driven by natural selection acting on inherited variations, leading to the diversification of life from simple to complex forms over vast periods of time.

- The interpretation of modern biology and Darwinian science based on proven facts have been the same since the interpretation was presented as fact-based science - of course completely arbitrarily!

Cell specialization - Over millions of years, cells in colonies began to specialize for different functions, such as reproduction, movement, or sensing the environment.

- Cows also began to specialize in excellent milk production on their own, thus creating the Holstein-Friesian cows. If not, then the same applies to the alleged species-specific development of cells!

Final thought: Intelligent events cannot originate from unintelligent forces! If they do, then humanity's testimony about itself on the gold discs placed on the Pioneer 10-11 space probes is worthless.

Шта је смисао постојања у светлу еволуције?

„Ништа у биологији нема смисла уколико се не испита у светлу еволуције.“ (Теодосије Добжански)

Ово је потпуно концептуални текст, успостављен из перспективе еволуционе филозофије, нема никакве везе са истином! Све је објашњено у смислу ове филозофије, експлицитно игноришући чињеницу да ништа не може еволуирати ако дати организам није генетски способан за микроеволуционе промене.

Дакле, ово је тачна изјава: >Ништа у еволуцији нема смисла осим ако се не посматра у светлу основног генетског програмирања!<

Дарвинова еволуциона теорија прати тренутни биолошки свет уназад до акумулације дугорочних микроеволуционих корака. /Од микроба до микробиолога током милиона година./ Али не може да га прати уназад /теорија не може да прати порекло ових корака/ јер је ова акумулација која води ка стратешком циљу страна природи.

У природи се бирају они који се најбоље прилагођавају датом окружењу, односно најспособнији, чији је циљ опстанак, а не постизање неког стратешког циља. Еволуција, која иде далеко даље од пуког опстанка и доводи до формирања потпуно нових врста током милиона година, постоји само у машти, а не у стварности! Дарвинова еволуција може објаснити варијације унутар већ постојећих врста, али не и постојање првобитне матичне врсте.

Нове врсте које наводно настају кроз мутационе промене и прве почетне предачке врсте не треба мешати, јер почетне разноврсне и многобројне врсте не могу бити створене мутационим променама без селекције врста, преживљавањем најбоље прилагођених субјеката из спонтаног развоја неке ћелије претка [LUCA], која се не може сама развити из неживих елемената.

Не можете прећи мост са тешким теретом на леђима, чије су ноге направљене од хипотеза. А абиогенеза је мост који носи тежину целог биолошког света, заснован искључиво на лаковерности, на теоријском нивоу, без доказа. 

Види: Дејвид Лин Абел: Зашто је абиогенеза тако тврд орах? - https://www.fortunjeournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html

„Теорија еволуције у крајњој линији има за циљ да објасни „мистерију живота“, порекло живих бића. Упркос многим важним открићима, питање почетка, порекла, остаје без одговора до данас... – Порекло живота остаје нерешено питање. Нико још није успео да од неживог бића направи живо биће, баш као што нико још није успео да састави комплетан „еволуциони СЦЕНАРИО“. Такав „СЦЕНАРИО“ би нам морао рећи који је био вероватни пут организације материје, током којег је стигла од А до Ш.“ Овај „СЦЕНАРИО“ мора да задовољи неке услове: мора бити убедљив хемијски и према еволуционим механизмима, и цела ствар мора бити сасвим вероватна. Ми немамо такав „СЦЕНАРИО“... Основни проблем је што прве еволутивне јединице нису могле настати на еволутивни начин, јер још увек нису имале потребна својства.“ /Еорш Сатмари, еволуциони биолог/ - http://www.c3.hu/~tillmann/konyvek/ezredvegi/szathmary.html

„Дарвинизам нема одговор на питање генетског кода. Нема одговор на питање порекла огромне количине информација садржаних у молекулима ДНК... ​​у науци постоји цензура, што се може пратити до чињенице да постоје догме које се никако не смеју доводити у питање... у 20. веку наука је усвојила учење да мора бити атеистичка, а то није у складу ни са научним чињеницама ни са људском психом… Дарвинистичко-атеистички лоби је толико финансијски моћан и има тако јаку контролу медија да се нова знања не могу објавити због строге цензуре.“ /Томислав Терзин, професор генетике, молекуларне биологије и развојне биологије на Универзитету Алберта, Канада. Интервју, и у својој књизи „Цензурисана научна открића“/ 

Појава/варијабилност врста названих новим и различитим од њиховог тренутног облика не може се екстраполирати на почетни изглед оригиналне врсте, јер оне не потичу од претходно постојећих организама – као овде – већ од организама који раније уопште нису постојали. У ствари, само прва врста може се назвати новом врстом, јер није имала и није могла имати претке.

Принцип вештачке селекције не би могао бити копиран природном селекцијом без интелигенције, да стално врши селекциони притисак на неку древну ћелију у смеру и интензитету неопходном да обезбеди сложену структуру милиона живих бића. У ствари, то је чак било отежано сталним променама у окружењу. Дакле, овај континуирани развој на замишљеном породичном стаблу еволуције је само псеудонаучна фантазија.

Еволуција је једноставно практична примена различитих адаптација на постојеће природно окружење, чија је легитимност потврђена природном селекцијом. Еволуција не ради ништа више него одржава равнотежу путем природне селекције међу живим организмима који имају генетски утврђену способност преживљавања од почетка. Јер ако не би могли да преживе, не би могли бити одржани у равнотежи.

Природа псеудонауке дарвинизма

Што се тиче Дарвинове еволуције као филогенетике /LUCA - хипотезе о имагинарном заједничком претку свих живих бића/, она се може класификовати као псеудонаука управо зато што претходно непостојеће живо биће било које врсте може бити узгајано само из неутралне ћелије путем сврсисходне и дугорочне селекције врста, док природна селекција увек бира оне који су најпогоднији за даљу репродукцију. У супротном, без стратешког циља у вези са специфичношћу врсте, потпуно слепо. 

Шта је Чарлс Дарвин рекао у својој аутобиографији о деловању природне селекције? „...нема више дизајна у деловању природне селекције него у правцу ветра.“ Шта су Ричард Докинс и Стивен Хокинг рекли о истој ствари? „Природна селекција је слепи часовничар; слепа зато што не предвиђа, зато што не планира последице, зато што нема циљ на видику... биолошка еволуција је у суштини случајно лутање кроз поље генетских могућности.“ Ово је потпуна супротност процесу људског узгајања.

Ако би се ова метода применила на људско узгој, шта би људи могли да узгајају бесциљним парењем субјеката насумично, без циљања на одређене особине? 

Од сточарског инжењера се тражи да створи нову, висококвалитетну животињу (нпр. краву холштајн-фризијске расе) одабиром само најприлагодљивијих јединки за узгој. Да ли би то било успешно? Хајде, покажите ми! Па како је еволуција успела да слепо и без вођства развије милионе различитих биљних и животињских врста, а на крају и људе, из те прве матичне ћелије зване LUCA? Да ли је природна селекција (која фаворизује прилагодљивост) произвела исте резултате као вештачка селекција (заснована на свесном одабиру најбољих јединки за размножавање?)? Она не може чак ни створити нову подврсту, а камоли потпуно нову врсту чије претходне врсте раније нису постојале!

Као што не можете узгајати холштајн-фризијску краву од крава са бољом прилагодљивошћу /јер то захтева селекцију према карактеристикама расе, што природа не може да уради без свести/, тако не можете узгајати краву из матичне ћелије непознатог порекла, нити можете еволутивним механизмом узгајати било коју другу врсту организма! Дарвинова еволуциона теорија манипулише микроеволуционим адаптацијама тренутних врста како би доказала порекло врста, али порекло првих различитих врста /основних типова/ које је створио Бог нема никакве везе са микроеволуционим адаптацијама тренутних врста!

Питање: Ако се краве холштајн-фризијске расе не могу узгајати од најбоље адаптираних крава, како је онда природна селекција успела да из најбоље адаптираних матичних ћелија /LUCA/ развије организме са различитим, раније непостојећим, специфичним карактеристикама расе? Како су слепи, углавном штетни процеси мутације резултирали толиким таксономским породицама и посебним врстама, када природна селекција нема других средстава осим одабира оних најбоље прилагођених окружењу у односу на оне лоше прилагођене?! 

Ако не можете да одговорите, онда доказујете неуспех дарвинистичке еволуције и њене очигледне псеудонауке! 

Псалам 31:19 Нека ућуте лажљиве усне које гордо и презриво говоре против истине. 

                                                            Утицај еволуционе филозофије 

„Људи не могу да поднесу идеју да су Универзум и живот бесмислени. У ствари, наука нам говори исту ствар...“ /Џери Којн, професор биологије (2012), „Чудан пар: Зашто наука и религија не могу коегзистирати“, говор скептицима у Глазгову, 21. децембра./ 

„Читав генетски програм је у служби ДНК, а не људи. Ми смо само привремени контејнери за молекуле који носе живот. У овом случају, амбалажа, односно ми сами, постоји само да би нас природа могла одбацити.“ /Руди Вестендорп, холандски професор геронтологије/ 

Потпуно бесмислене слепе силе бесмислено стварају сложене анатомске формуле, само да би упале у бесмисленост! Друштво одгајано на дарвинизму доводи у питање смисао сопственог постојања. То је оно што еволуција ради под пуном заштитом званичне академске науке. 

Рат против Библије је највећа грешка у историји науке. Уместо да учини човечанство срећнијим, рат против Христовог закона изазвао је нагли пораст криминала и похлепе. Вера у Бога је ограничавајућа сила, а еволуција је ослобађајућа сила за развој зла у људској природи. 

„Изјава 'Бог је учинио чудо' делује као бесмислено, примитивно и лењо решење. Снажно одбацујем идеју да би било ко ко користи таква решења желео да наметне моралне обавезе мени, свима.“ - Дакле, није случајно што атеисти кажу да дарвинистичкој еволуцији, јер им она даје слободу да живе свим врстама либералних живота у складу са својим индивидуалним интересима и вредностима. 

Дарвинов геније у области биологије довео је до овога у смислу његовог моралног утицаја на друштво: 

„Атенборо: Нисмо оштетили наш свет, ми смо га уништили“ -https://www.theceomagene.com/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/attenborough-witness-statement/

Wat is de betekenis van het bestaan in het licht van de evolutie?

 

"Niets in de biologie is zinvol, tenzij het in het licht van de evolutie wordt bekeken." /Theodosius Dobzhansky/

Dit is een volledig conceptuele tekst, opgesteld vanuit het perspectief van de evolutionaire filosofie; het heeft niets met de waarheid te maken! Alles wordt uitgelegd in termen van deze filosofie, waarbij expliciet wordt genegeerd dat niets kan evolueren als het gegeven organisme genetisch niet in staat is tot micro-evolutionaire veranderingen.

Dit is dus de juiste stelling: >Niets in de evolutie is zinvol, tenzij je het bekijkt in het licht van de onderliggende genetische programmering!<

In de natuur worden degenen die zich het best kunnen aanpassen aan een bepaalde omgeving, oftewel de meest geschikte, geselecteerd. Het doel daarvan is overleven, en niet het bereiken van een strategisch doel. Evolutie, die veel verder gaat dan louter overleven en leidt tot de vorming van volledig nieuwe soorten over miljoenen jaren, bestaat alleen in de verbeelding, niet in de werkelijkheid! Darwinistische evolutie kan de variaties binnen reeds bestaande soorten verklaren, maar niet het bestaan van de oorspronkelijke oudersoort.

De nieuwe soort die naar verluidt is ontstaan door mutaties, mag niet worden verward met de allereerste oorspronkelijke soort. De oorspronkelijke, diverse en veelvormige soort had immers niet kunnen ontstaan door mutaties zonder soortenselectie, door het overleven van de best aangepaste individuen uit de spontane ontwikkeling van een voorouderlijke cel [LUCA], die zich niet uit zichzelf kon ontwikkelen uit levenloze elementen.

Niemand is ooit over een brug gelopen met een zware last op zijn rug, waarvan de pijlers bestaan uit hypothesen. Abiogenese is een brug die het gewicht draagt van de gehele biologische wereld, enkel gebaseerd op goedgelovigheid, op een theoretisch niveau, zonder bewijs.

Zie: David Lynn Abel: Waarom is abiogenese zo'n harde noot om te kraken? - https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html

"De evolutietheorie is uiteindelijk gericht op het verklaren van het 'mysterie van het leven', de oorsprong van levende wezens. Ondanks vele belangrijke ontdekkingen blijft de vraag naar het begin, de oorsprong, onbeantwoord... – De oorsprong van het leven blijft een onopgeloste vraag. Niemand is er tot nu toe in geslaagd leven te maken uit levenloze materie, net zoals niemand er tot nu toe in is geslaagd een compleet 'evolutionair SCENARIO' samen te stellen." Zo'n "SCENARIO" zou ons moeten vertellen wat het waarschijnlijke pad van de organisatie van materie was, om van A naar Z te komen. Dit "SCENARIO" moet aan een paar voorwaarden voldoen: het moet chemisch en evolutionair overtuigend zijn, en het geheel moet volkomen plausibel zijn. "We hebben zo'n "SCENARIO" niet... Het fundamentele probleem is dat de eerste evolutionaire eenheden niet op evolutionaire wijze konden ontstaan, omdat ze nog niet over de benodigde eigenschappen beschikten." /Eörs Szatmáry, evolutionair bioloog/ - http://www.c3.hu/~tillmann/konyvek/ezredvegi/szathmary.html

“Darwinisme heeft geen antwoord op de vraag naar de genetische code. Het heeft geen antwoord op de vraag naar de oorsprong van de enorme hoeveelheid informatie die DNA-moleculen bevatten... Er is censuur in de wetenschap, die voortkomt uit het feit dat er dogma's zijn die op geen enkele manier ter discussie kunnen worden gesteld... In de 20e eeuw nam de wetenschap de leer aan dat men atheïst moet zijn, dat het niet in harmonie is met wetenschappelijke feiten of de menselijke psyche... De darwinistisch-atheïstische lobby is zo financieel machtig en heeft zo'n sterke mediacontrole dat nieuwe kennis niet kan worden gepubliceerd vanwege strenge censuur.” /Tomislav Terzin, hoogleraar genetica, moleculaire biologie en ontwikkelingsbiologie aan de Universiteit van Alberta, Canada. Interview, en in zijn boek "Censored Scientific Discoveries"./

Het verschijnen/de variabiliteit van soorten die nieuw en anders dan hun huidige vorm worden genoemd, kan niet worden geëxtrapoleerd naar de eerste verschijning van de oorspronkelijke soort, aangezien ze niet afkomstig zijn van eerder bestaande organismen – zoals hier – maar van organismen die voorheen helemaal niet bestonden. Sterker nog, alleen de allereerste soort kan een nieuwe soort worden genoemd, aangezien deze geen voorouders had en ook niet kon hebben.

Het principe van kunstmatige selectie had niet door natuurlijke selectie gereproduceerd kunnen worden zonder intelligentie, die constant selectiedruk uitoefende op een oeroude cel in de richting en intensiteit die nodig waren om de complexe structuur van miljoenen levende wezens te waarborgen. Bovendien werd het zelfs geremd door voortdurende veranderingen in de omgeving. Deze voortdurende ontwikkeling langs de denkbeeldige evolutieboom is daarom niets meer dan pseudowetenschappelijke fantasie.

Evolutie is simpelweg de praktische toepassing van verschillende aanpassingen aan de bestaande natuurlijke omgeving, waarvan de legitimiteit door natuurlijke selectie is bevestigd. Evolutie doet niets anders dan door middel van natuurlijke selectie een evenwicht handhaven tussen levende organismen die vanaf het begin een genetisch vastgesteld overlevingsvermogen hebben. Want als ze niet konden overleven, konden ze niet in evenwicht worden gehouden.

De pseudowetenschappelijke aard van het darwinisme

Darwinistische evolutie, gezien als fylogenetica (LUCA – de hypothese van een denkbeeldige gemeenschappelijke voorouder van alle levende wezens), kan worden geclassificeerd als pseudowetenschap, voornamelijk omdat een voorheen niet-bestaand organisme, ongeacht de soort, alleen kan worden voortgebracht vanuit een neutrale cel door doelbewuste en langdurige soortenselectie, terwijl natuurlijke selectie altijd de meest geschikte soort selecteert voor verdere voortplanting in de omgeving in termen van overleving. Bovendien is het, zonder een strategisch doel met betrekking tot soortspecificiteit, volledig blind.

Wat zei Charles Darwin in zijn autobiografie over de werking van natuurlijke selectie? "...er zit net zo min een ontwerp in de werking van natuurlijke selectie als in de windrichting." Wat zeiden Richard Dawkins en Stephen Hawking over hetzelfde? "Natuurlijke selectie is een blinde horlogemaker; blind omdat ze niet voorziet, omdat ze geen plannen maakt voor gevolgen, omdat ze geen doel voor ogen heeft... biologische evolutie is in wezen een willekeurige wandeling door het veld van genetische mogelijkheden." Dit is precies het tegenovergestelde van het doelbewuste proces van menselijke dieren- en plantenveredeling.

Als deze methode zou worden gebruikt bij kunstmatige voortplanting, wat zouden mensen dan kunnen produceren door doelloos en willekeurig te paren, zonder zich te richten op specifieke eigenschappen?

Laat de ingenieur maar een nieuwe kwaliteitsdiersoort fokken (bijvoorbeeld de Holstein-Friesian koe) door alleen de meest aanpasbare koeien te selecteren voor de fokkerij. Zou hij daarin slagen? Laat het ons maar zien! Hoe is de evolutie er dan in geslaagd om blind en zonder begeleiding miljoenen verschillende plant- en diersoorten, en uiteindelijk de mens, te ontwikkelen uit die allereerste stamcel genaamd LUCA? Heeft natuurlijke selectie (die aanpassingsvermogen bevoordeelt) hetzelfde resultaat opgeleverd als kunstmatige selectie (gebaseerd op de bewuste selectie van de best fokbare individuen?). Ze kan zelfs geen nieuwe ondersoort creëren, laat staan een compleet nieuwe soort waarvan de voorouderlijke soorten voorheen niet bestonden!

Net zoals je geen Holstein-Friesian koe kunt fokken uit beter aanpasbare koeien – omdat dit selectie vereist op basis van raskenmerken, wat de natuur niet kan zonder bewustzijn – kun je geen koe fokken uit een stamcel van onbekende oorsprong, en kun je ook geen andere levende wezens fokken door evolutionaire mechanismen! Darwins evolutietheorie manipuleert de micro-evolutionaire aanpassing van huidige soorten om het ontstaan van soorten te bewijzen, maar het ontstaan van de allereerste afzonderlijke soorten – basistypen – die door God zijn geschapen, heeft niets te maken met de micro-evolutionaire aanpassing van huidige soorten!

Vraag: Als Holstein-Friesian koeien niet gefokt kunnen worden uit de best aangepaste koeien, hoe is natuurlijke selectie er dan in geslaagd om verschillende, voorheen niet-bestaande organismen met specifieke raskenmerken te ontwikkelen uit de best aangepaste stamcellen /LUCA/? Hoe hebben blinde, veelal schadelijke mutatieprocessen geleid tot zoveel taxonomische families en speciale soorten, terwijl natuurlijke selectie geen andere middelen heeft dan de best aangepaste soorten te selecteren boven de slechtst aangepaste soorten?!

Als u geen antwoord kunt geven, bewijst u het falen van de Darwinsche evolutietheorie, en de overduidelijke pseudowetenschap ervan!

Psalmen 31:19 Laten de leugenachtige lippen het zwijgen worden opgelegd, die hoogmoedig en met minachting spreken tegen de waarheid.

De impact van evolutionaire filosofie

"Mensen kunnen het idee niet verdragen dat het universum en het leven betekenisloos zijn. Sterker nog, de wetenschap vertelt ons dat..." /Jerry Coyne, hoogleraar biologie (2012), "The Odd Couple: Why Science and Religion Can't Coexist", toespraak tot de Glasgow Skeptics, 21 december/

"Het hele genetische programma is voor DNA, niet voor mensen. Wij zijn slechts tijdelijke containers voor de moleculen die leven dragen. In dit geval is de container die wij zijn er alleen om door [de natuur] te worden weggegooid." /Rudi Westendorp, hoogleraar gerontologie, Nederland/

Volkomen onzinnige, blinde krachten creëren zinvolle anatomische formules, om vervolgens in betekenisloosheid te vervallen! Een maatschappij die is opgevoed met het darwinisme stelt de zin van haar eigen bestaan ter discussie. Dit is wat evolutie doet onder de volledige auspiciën van de officiële academische wetenschap.

De oorlog tegen de Bijbel is de grootste vergissing in de geschiedenis van de wetenschap. In plaats van de mensheid gelukkiger te maken, heeft de oorlog tegen de wet van Christus geleid tot een plotselinge toename van criminaliteit en een hebzuchtige levensstijl. Geloof in God is een remmende kracht, en evolutie is een bevrijdende kracht, voor de ontplooiing van het kwaad dat inherent is aan de menselijke natuur.

"De oplossing "God deed een wonder" lijkt niet veeleisend, primitief en lui. Ik verwerp ten zeerste het idee dat iemand die dergelijke oplossingen gebruikt, mij, of wie dan ook, morele verplichtingen probeert op te leggen." - Het is dan ook geen toeval dat atheïsten ja zeggen tegen de Darwinsche evolutietheorie, omdat die hen de vrijheid geeft om allerlei liberale levens te leiden volgens hun eigen individuele interesses en waarden.

Darwins biologische genialiteit heeft, wat betreft de morele impact op de samenleving, geleid tot:

Attenborough: "We hebben onze wereld niet geruïneerd, we hebben hem vernietigd” - https://www.theceomagazine.com/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/attenborough-witness-statement/