-
Add Bookmark | Recommend this book | Back to the book page | My bookshelf | Mobile Reading
Free Web Novel,Novel online - All in oicq.net -> Historic -> smart factory Text Chapter 1373 New Biology
Previous page Return to Catalog Next page
- Chapter 1373 New Biology
Milton made it clear that he did not support the religious fanatics who attacked Darwin's theory of evolution. ¡¾¡¿
¡°As a science journalist and writer with a lifelong love of geology and paleontology, I was in a very unique position when observing and reporting on the situation with Darwin¡¯s theory of evolution in the 1990s.¡±
Milton himself said, "The results are conclusive. The theory of evolution no longer works."
By his own account, Milton was a staunch evolutionist. As he began to examine the theory, he made regular visits to Britain's prestigious museums. He collected the examples that best illustrated Darwin's theory of evolution and examined them with enthusiasm.
But one by one they shattered his illusions, and he realized that many scientists in the world had reached the same conclusion. The emperor in clothes was obviously naked.
But what about most people? How many people still believe in the pile of rubbish information on evolution taught in the superstitious classroom? Has this been said to the lecture notes for 100 years? Is this subjective conjecture or a fabricated lie?
So why hasn¡¯t a single expert denounced this theory in public publications?
The reason is simple. These scientists or public figures usually make a living in universities or government civil servants. They are well-trained and well-qualified.
If they do this, they will destroy their own jobs and will be despised by everyone. Trouble has never been popular. The hounds of the government are still alive and well, and with the addition of the Darwinists, their control over the academic community is even stronger.
These Darwinists are dogmatizing their beliefs little by little. Just like their creationist rivals do. Compared with the idea that humans and all living things were created by some higher species, only Darwin's theory of evolution meets political needs.
That is, they choose to identify things, if they belong to the common people. You can accuse whatever you want, even celebrities. But as long as those with background are involved, most of them are silent about this kind of knowledge and understanding.
Many scientists still try to quietly hint at the problem of evolution. In a 1967 university lecture, the world-renowned anthropologist Louis Leakey referred to the "missing link" and stated succinctly: "There is nothing missing here. One link, but several missing links.¡±
This is an archaeologist and anthropologist. His description and analysis of the 1.75 million-year-old East African skull discovered by his wife, Mary Reach, in Tanzania influenced the theory of human evolution.
Louis was born in Kenya, his parents were British Christian missionaries. He grew up living with the Kikuyu people and was later admitted to Cambridge University to study anthropology.
Gould at Harvard eventually wrote a paper suggesting that a theory should be established. Specifically used to explain the absence of intermediate species and the sudden appearance of species. He called this theory "punctuated equilibrium."
People are generally not told that there are scientific problems with Darwin's theory of evolution. And when ordinary people realize that there is a war between creationism and evolution, then they obviously see it as an act of defense, an age-old war between issues of science and faith.
This war was settled a generation ago at the Scopus Trial. Of course, at the same time, the "missing link" between monkeys and humans does make some people uneasy.
Strong believers in the theory of evolution have long puzzled over the absence of fossils of intermediate species, which they believe is responsible for this absence. It's because they haven't found the fossils of the intermediate species yet.
But the biggest question is, how can they be so sure that this is the case?
It¡¯s just that Darwin¡¯s theory of evolution requires this statement. So the search continues. But how much more time, how many expeditions, and how long will it take for us humans to explore before we finally admit that there are no fossils of transitional species at all?
And what if this is wrong? Is there no intermediate stage at all?
"Darwin knew that if there were no fossils of transitional species, his theory would become a target of public criticism, that is, a lie. What is the difference between this geocentric theory? Have you learned lies for 100 years? How ridiculous? So what kind of historical reputation will Darwin and his followers face?
Geneticists have long known that large numbers of genetic mutations can be beneficial or even harmful.
In other words, a genetic mutation is usually an error, a mistake in DNA's ability to accurately copy information. This clearly shows that mutation is not a reliable means necessary for evolution, because natural selection obviously does not provide such a driving force that can lead to what evolutionists call evolution.
It should be said that, since?Selection operates like a control mechanism, a feedback system that eliminates those that do not adapt and selects those that adapt successfully.
¡° Moreover, if genetic mutation is taken as the root cause of evolution, then there will be many problems.
As Bach pointed out in his work, cellular life is too complex to be the product of random genetic mutations. Darwin did not have the laboratory techniques that biologists have today.
Today, we humans understand that the history of female DNA is about 130,000 years ago. Darwin studied species, not cell structure, mitochondria and DNA.
But the mutation theory also doesn¡¯t work in the field of species. The level of understanding of things is already different, so it is said that the theory of evolution cannot explain many things.
Back to the issue of flowering plants, flowers have a very high systematic nature. Most flowers are specially designed for bees and other pollinating insects. So, which came first, bees or flowers?
We can immediately find that the first question is: How did the primitive non-flowering plants that have relied on xing for reproduction for generations suddenly grow the tissues needed for xing reproduction?
According to the theory of evolution, this all happens when gymnosperms mutate and, over time, become flowering plants. However, is this possible?
Let¡¯s consider the following facts: In flowering plants, before seed plants can reproduce viable. Pollen must be able to travel from male anthers to female stigmas, and this mutation has to start with a plant in a certain place at a certain time.
But there are no insects or animals suitable to spread pollen at this time, because there were no flowers at all before this. That is to say. Once the pollen method spreads, sexual reproduction is just an empty talk.
It is here that the alliance between mutation, natural selection and gradualism is broken.
How did sexual reproduction become sexual reproduction? When explaining this problem, evolutionists say that this is because evolution proceeds too slowly, so the correlations between evolution are very small and difficult to observe.
But this is obviously an illogical inference. If evolution was really slow, then we should find a lot of fossils that would prove that the missing link actually existed.
Natural selection will not select a gymnosperm or a fern to suddenly mutate a tissue. Because this requires a lot of energy from the plant for no reason.
In other words, flowering plants don¡¯t slowly grow flower tissue part by part, which would take tens of millions of years to grow into a fully functional flower. This is obviously contrary to Darwin's theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
The more we examine the logical reasoning of the theory of evolution, the more confused it becomes. Since there are no flowers of the same kind nearby. So how does an evolved flower reproduce?
Why archaeologists have found evidence of a large number of gymnosperms and angiosperms in fossils. But no intermediate species could be found to explain how plants mutate into flowers? There is a problem with the scientific logical analysis of the theory of evolution, and the logic cannot continue here.
But how many people are still superstitious about the speculations and theories of the intellectual circles in the Enlightenment Era?
If the theory of evolution cannot explain the causes of speciation and how life on Earth evolved, then who can? Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of the double helix structure of DNA, proposed the concept of "panspermia".
This theory believes that life was brought to the earth by advanced civilizations from alien planets. Apparently Crick didn't buy Darwin's account. In addition, Bach also proposed the "intelligent design theory" in "Darwin's Black Box".
Regarding the origin of life, people have been accustomed to believe that life originated from the earth itself. Today, there is another theory, that is, cosmic panspermia.
This theory holds that the first organisms on earth came from other planets or "germs" from the universe, and they could reach the earth through light pressure or meteorites.
This view was quite popular in the 19th century and is still held by a few scientists today. For example, the British molecular scientist Crick and others, based on the fact that organisms on earth have a unified genetic code and the rare element molybdenum plays a special and important role in the enzyme system, speculated that all organisms on earth were created by a wealthy man billions of years ago. Developed from germs of molybdenum-containing civilized planets.
Another example is the British astronomer Hoyle, who also firmly believes that "cosmic germs" can reach the earth through various harsh environments based on the fact that some bacteria can survive under conditions such as high temperature, dryness or strong radiation, and believes that some carbon Chondrites actually contain charred bacteria and spores.
"The theory of cosmic panspermia" currently lacks convincing evidence. To say the least, even if this theory can be established, it does not solve the problem of how the earliest "panspermia" life originated.
In other words, this hypothesis believes that the earliest life on earth or constituted organismsThe organic matter comes from other cosmic planets or interstellar dust.
Scholars who hold this hypothesis believe that certain microbial spores can attach to interstellar dust particles and fall to the earth, thus giving the earth initial life.
But we know that the physical conditions of space, such as ultraviolet rays and other high-energy rays, as well as temperature and other conditions, are fatal to life. Moreover, even if there are these lives, in the process of them passing through the atmosphere and reaching the earth with meteorites, they will Will be killed due to too high temperatures.
Therefore, it seems unlikely that life forms on the level of microbial spores could come from outside. However, some scholars believe that it is entirely possible that some of the organic matter that constitutes life comes from space
duyidu.
Read it
On September 28, 1969, scientists discovered that a carbonaceous meteorite that fell in the town of McKison, Australia, contained 18 kinds of amino acids, 6 of which are necessary to form the protein molecules of living things.
Scientific research shows that some organic molecules such as amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and other molecules can be produced on the surface of interstellar dust. These organic molecules may be brought to the earth by comets or meteorites and evolve into primitive life on the earth.
Other biologist phyla. Lynn Margulis, for example, feels that evolutionary theory places too much emphasis on the idea that the main driving force behind survival is competition.
? She points out that collaboration is also easy to observe. Just as important and maybe important. There are many examples of symbiosis in nature: flowers need bees, and in turn, bees need flowers.
Another example is mycorrhizal fungi and forests. Bacteria on mycorrhizal fungi produce nitrogen for plants. There are many examples like this. Isn¡¯t the human body also composed of different cells? Viruses also work together to create complex organizations.
Old models have begun to give way to new ideas and new models, such as intelligent design and alien intervention. Freud was a 19th-century pioneer whose discoveries illuminated the paths of knowledge.
The same forerunner is Newton. His model created new prospects and solved old problems. despite this. They still have limitations and their theories are based on mechanism and materialism.
With the emergence of various theories in the electrical age, Newton's theory began to be eclipsed. The patterns of the laws of physics correspond to reality. Answered a lot of questions and played a big role.
Who can know who will be the next Darwin in biology?
Unless there is a theory that can effectively explain the origin and evolution of species. Only then can one say what Milton said: "Darwinism is completely useless."
And when we look back at history. You will find that many years ago, Darwin's theory was also questioned and considered a madman and a madman.
In Europe at that time, the Book of Genesis in the Bible told everyone that God created the world in six days and created the first man, Adam, from the soil of the earth.
Many Christians believe that God created humans in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago. Scientists and religious scholars call this theory "creationism."
It was not until 1859 that Darwin proposed another view: He believed that the emergence of human beings could only be placed in the context of material creation. It can be explained through evolution and natural selection.
In other words, survival of the fittest. According to Darwin's theory. The idea that humans evolved from monkeys is indeed a bizarre idea compared to what the Bible explains.
Richard Thompson and Michael Kramer co-wrote "The Archaeological Forbidden Zone". In the book, they collected a collection of evidence to prove that modern humans did not appear in South Africa 100,000 years ago as speculated. , but appeared millions of years ago.
Later, NBC filmed a documentary called "The Mystery of Human Origins", and Thompson and Kramer came here with evidence and other experts.
They brought evidence that humans neither evolved from monkeys nor that God created them from clay 4,000 years before Christ. The theories they propose are far-reaching and may force a rethinking of the entire origin of the human species.
In this documentary, Charlton Heston shows evidence that much of the scientific establishment ignores.
In this way, "The Mystery of Human Origins" makes the debate between the Bible and the theory of evolution public. Many people gathered to discuss the discovery of human footprints in Texas, which happened to be imprinted next to dinosaur tracks.
They discussed whether stone tools should be traced back to 55 million years ago, discussed precise maps of unknown eras, and also discussed evidence of advanced prehistoric civilization.
And those exquisite tools we gave in the previous post, etc., do you think primitive humans could have designed them without any problems? Designed without purpose or intelligence? Many plots?, not without reason.
At the turning point of the 19th century, Darwin's theory of evolution began to become the mainstream theory in the scientific community. Based on comprehensive research on this period, as well as later archaeological discoveries, The Mystery of Human Origins reveals a certain "knowledge filter" phenomenon within the scientific establishment.
A bias that readily accepts dogma while turning a blind eye to evidence simply because the evidence does not support a traditional doctrine.
Unfortunately, for a century now, fossil evidence has pointed to humans appearing much earlier than conventional theory believed, and that humans did not evolve from monkeys, and certainly were not made of dirt.
NBC¡¯s documentary revealed that this view was prohibited from being published because it offended a well-established belief system. Furthermore, scientists who challenge dogma ultimately find that they are not only excluded from the debate but may also lose their jobs.
Science observer Richard Milton and other experts have gone after so-called "speculative leaps" in the theory of evolution. They believe that the so-called common ancestor of humans and monkeys has never been found and was simply concocted by scientists who were too keen to find the "missing link" in human evolution.
¡°There doesn¡¯t seem to be a missing link,¡± Milton said of the 120-year effort to prove the theory of evolution.
Consider the case of the so-called Javanese erectus: In 1891, anthropologist Eugene Dubois discovered a human femur and an ape skull in Indonesia, just 40 feet apart. So he had an idea and pieced these two bones together to create the famous Javanese ape-man.
However, many experts believe that this femur has nothing to do with the skull. Shortly before his death, Dubois himself said that the skull actually belonged to a large monkey and that the femur belonged to a human.
To this day, Javanese Man is still used as evidence of the evolution of monkeys, and also appears in a New York museum as a symbol of evolution.
Another example is Piltdown Man, another fanatical fan of the theory of evolution. It was "discovered" in England in 1910. Like other pieces of evidence, this discovery turned out to be nothing more than another carefully planned false evidence by evolution fanatics. To be continued. ) - Didn't finish reading? Add this book to your favoritesI'm a member and bookmarked this chapterCopy the address of this book and recommend it to your friends for pointsChapter error? Click here to report
- Previous pageCatalogNext page