Turning Darwinian Evolution Upside Down
Kazmer Ujvarosy
March 09, 2006
The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) simplemindedly promotes the concept of evolution from a simple beginning, and illustrates the process that drives the development of life on Earth with the tree-of-life model. It seeks to explain by the tree's forks and branches the relatedness of all organisms on this planet, both living and extinct. "Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species," we are told.
The subtle point PBS intends to make is that over a long period of time one species is transformed into another, like chimpanzees into humans, which species allegedly share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. The predicted ancestor we share with the chimpanzees is still to be discovered. Or is it?
A better look at evolution's tree of life reveals a deception that fooled millions of otherwise sensible minds. Evolution's tree of life is a seedless or genomeless tree. We are presented with a tree, but no seed whatsoever is mentioned in the generation of that tree. In short, deluded evolutionists are attempting to explain the tree of life's generation in the absence of a parent seed, which initial seed is the actual common ancestor of the tree system's constituent sub-systems.
In the absence of an initial parent seed it indeed seems that the inanimate dirt of the ground managed to generate the roots by pure chance and over time, the roots the tree's trunk, the trunk the branches, the branches the twigs, and the twigs the leaves, for absolutely no purpose, of course.
Because evolution's most unnatural tree of life is seedless, naturally it is also fruitless. The tree is pictured as a system which has no input and output in the form of genome or seed.
In contrast to evolution's seedless and fruitless tree, nature's trees are the phenotypes of genotypes. Thus in nature invariably we find that a seed or genotype generates a phenotype tree for the production of seeds in its own image. To illustrate my point, over 97 percent of a giant Sequoia' mass is considered to be dead. Yet that seemingly dead system yields leaves, flowers, and millions of tiny winged seeds. We know it yields seeds as its output because a seed generated that tree structure for the purpose of self-reproduction.
In systems language input seed generates tree system for the production of output seeds. Knowing that systems resemble each other in fundamental ways, based on the tree system it is inferable that if the cosmic system yields human life as its output, then logic and nature's observation dictate that human life also constitutes the cosmic system’s input. Thus nature’s systems tell us that human life constitutes the seed or genotype of the phenotype cosmic organism for the purpose of self-reproduction.
Now we know, based solely on the observation of nature's tree system, that the universe is only human life's way of making another human life in its own image, just as “A hen is only an egg’s way of making another egg,” as Samuel Butler expressed it. In a nutshell, this finding of systems cosmology constitutes the Seed Cosmology, Theory of Creation, Grand Unified Theory, or Theory of Everything.
Here is an even more elegant expression of this scientific Theory of Creation: human life constitutes the seed of the universe. No wonder that our universe is ingeniously bio-friendly, i.e. that the cosmological parameters are exquisitely fine-tuned for the production of human life.
In the microcosmic world we find that the parameters or determining characteristics of plant and animal systems are delicately fine-tuned for the production of reproductive cells because those systems are reproductive cells unfolded. We find, in other words, that the parameters of a hen are fine-tuned for egg-production because an egg generated that system for the purpose of self-reproduction. Also we find that the parameters of an apple tree are fine-tuned for apple-production because an apple seed generated that system for the purpose of self-reproduction.
So when we find that the parameters of the macrocosmic universe are fine-tuned for the production of human life, then we have all the reason to postulate that it is so because human life generated the cosmic system for the purpose of self-reproduction. Moreover, when we find that a complex chain connects all life, we have all the reason to postulate that it is so because the human genome constitutes the common ancestor of all things created and connects them in an unbroken relationship. Finally, when we find that we share our genes with the animals, we have all the reason to postulate that it is so because human life is the common ancestor of the entire kingdom of life.
So there goes Darwin’s brainchild down the drain. He believed that the first and lowest form of life was the common ancestor, and that “from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” As now we know, its very opposite provides the best explanation: from a most complex beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being developed. Thus what Darwin believed to be evolution is evidently cosmic ontogeny, i.e. the developmental course of an initial seed or genotype to the mature universe for the purpose of self-reproduction.
Needless to say, none of the celebrities of science came even near to this conclusion. Instead, they appeal to the idea of a multiverse and absurdities of that nature in an effort to explain away the bio-centrality of our universe. The facts, however, remain, and the weird speculations will have to go.
There is no need to say more about the “competence” of evolutionists. Their crank theories speak for themselves.
But hold everything! We forgot to demonstrate what makes human life immortal. So here is the explanation: human life, being the genotype of the phenotype universe, is immortal because the universe, being the effect, has no power to act upon the initial cause of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act upon the initial seed of its own origin.
Do we need more evidence for life’s immortality? What about the principle of biogenesis?
In the Oxford Dictionary of Biology (4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2000) we find: “biogenesis The principle that a living organism can only arise from other living organisms similar to itself (i.e. that like gives rise to like) and can never originate from nonliving material.” Read also what the Science and Technology Encyclopedia (University of Chicago Press, 1999) says about the subject of biogenesis: “Biological principle maintaining that all living organisms derive from parent(s) generally similar to themselves. This long-held principle was originally established in opposition to the idea of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION of life. On the whole, it still holds good, despite variations in individuals caused by mutations, hybridization, and other genetic effects.”
Let me add that the principle of biogenesis has never been refuted. So no biological generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than the principle of biogenesis. And because the scientific evidence is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that life can never originate from nonlife, only from life similar to itself, it is an entirely reasonable and consequently scientific conclusion that there was never a time when life did not exist, and human life could come only from human life similar to itself. Now I'd like to see what kind of scientific evidence refutes the principle of biogenesis.
Related to life’s immortality, and to Darwin’s theory of evolution as well, is the principle of causality. Just as the principle of biogenesis, it has never been refuted, except by magicians who pull rabbits from “empty” hats, or by cosmologists who make the universe pop into existence from the quantum “vacuum,” or by evolutionists who produce the rich diversity and complexity of life from the first “lowest form of life.” Be as it may, according to that most rational principle a cause cannot produce an effect superior to itself. Otherwise the difference between the cause and the superior effect would have to come from nothing. Thus a Big Bang cannot produce an effect superior to itself, and the first lowest form of life of Darwinism cannot produce an effect superior to itself. Case closed. This leaves us with the only rational choice: the highest form of life that exists created the universe for the purpose of self-reproduction.
Since we know nothing higher than human life, the theory is rational and necessarily scientific that human life constitutes the seed or genotype of the phenotype universe. In other words one unifying information and life-energy field connects all things in the universe. It connects, binds, and animates all things, from the smallest structures to the greatest. Our universe is generated and sustained by human life's immortality.
Only if evolutionists manage to refute these principles of nature should we join them in the celebration of nonlife's and natural selection's incredible creative potentials. In the meantime we should study nature's life-giving systems and based on those observations infer that the universe yields human life because the cosmic system itself is the product of human life.
The fact of human life's generation from human life has been confirmed to such a degree of certainty that it would be perverse to deny its validity. So it is evident beyond any reasonable doubt that no explanation other than the generation of the universe by human life for the purpose of self-reproduction can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of life in the universe. No alternative explanations have any chance to compete with common descent from human life.
The subtle point PBS intends to make is that over a long period of time one species is transformed into another, like chimpanzees into humans, which species allegedly share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. The predicted ancestor we share with the chimpanzees is still to be discovered. Or is it?
A better look at evolution's tree of life reveals a deception that fooled millions of otherwise sensible minds. Evolution's tree of life is a seedless or genomeless tree. We are presented with a tree, but no seed whatsoever is mentioned in the generation of that tree. In short, deluded evolutionists are attempting to explain the tree of life's generation in the absence of a parent seed, which initial seed is the actual common ancestor of the tree system's constituent sub-systems.
In the absence of an initial parent seed it indeed seems that the inanimate dirt of the ground managed to generate the roots by pure chance and over time, the roots the tree's trunk, the trunk the branches, the branches the twigs, and the twigs the leaves, for absolutely no purpose, of course.
Because evolution's most unnatural tree of life is seedless, naturally it is also fruitless. The tree is pictured as a system which has no input and output in the form of genome or seed.
In contrast to evolution's seedless and fruitless tree, nature's trees are the phenotypes of genotypes. Thus in nature invariably we find that a seed or genotype generates a phenotype tree for the production of seeds in its own image. To illustrate my point, over 97 percent of a giant Sequoia' mass is considered to be dead. Yet that seemingly dead system yields leaves, flowers, and millions of tiny winged seeds. We know it yields seeds as its output because a seed generated that tree structure for the purpose of self-reproduction.
In systems language input seed generates tree system for the production of output seeds. Knowing that systems resemble each other in fundamental ways, based on the tree system it is inferable that if the cosmic system yields human life as its output, then logic and nature's observation dictate that human life also constitutes the cosmic system’s input. Thus nature’s systems tell us that human life constitutes the seed or genotype of the phenotype cosmic organism for the purpose of self-reproduction.
Now we know, based solely on the observation of nature's tree system, that the universe is only human life's way of making another human life in its own image, just as “A hen is only an egg’s way of making another egg,” as Samuel Butler expressed it. In a nutshell, this finding of systems cosmology constitutes the Seed Cosmology, Theory of Creation, Grand Unified Theory, or Theory of Everything.
Here is an even more elegant expression of this scientific Theory of Creation: human life constitutes the seed of the universe. No wonder that our universe is ingeniously bio-friendly, i.e. that the cosmological parameters are exquisitely fine-tuned for the production of human life.
In the microcosmic world we find that the parameters or determining characteristics of plant and animal systems are delicately fine-tuned for the production of reproductive cells because those systems are reproductive cells unfolded. We find, in other words, that the parameters of a hen are fine-tuned for egg-production because an egg generated that system for the purpose of self-reproduction. Also we find that the parameters of an apple tree are fine-tuned for apple-production because an apple seed generated that system for the purpose of self-reproduction.
So when we find that the parameters of the macrocosmic universe are fine-tuned for the production of human life, then we have all the reason to postulate that it is so because human life generated the cosmic system for the purpose of self-reproduction. Moreover, when we find that a complex chain connects all life, we have all the reason to postulate that it is so because the human genome constitutes the common ancestor of all things created and connects them in an unbroken relationship. Finally, when we find that we share our genes with the animals, we have all the reason to postulate that it is so because human life is the common ancestor of the entire kingdom of life.
So there goes Darwin’s brainchild down the drain. He believed that the first and lowest form of life was the common ancestor, and that “from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” As now we know, its very opposite provides the best explanation: from a most complex beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being developed. Thus what Darwin believed to be evolution is evidently cosmic ontogeny, i.e. the developmental course of an initial seed or genotype to the mature universe for the purpose of self-reproduction.
Needless to say, none of the celebrities of science came even near to this conclusion. Instead, they appeal to the idea of a multiverse and absurdities of that nature in an effort to explain away the bio-centrality of our universe. The facts, however, remain, and the weird speculations will have to go.
There is no need to say more about the “competence” of evolutionists. Their crank theories speak for themselves.
But hold everything! We forgot to demonstrate what makes human life immortal. So here is the explanation: human life, being the genotype of the phenotype universe, is immortal because the universe, being the effect, has no power to act upon the initial cause of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act upon the initial seed of its own origin.
Do we need more evidence for life’s immortality? What about the principle of biogenesis?
In the Oxford Dictionary of Biology (4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2000) we find: “biogenesis The principle that a living organism can only arise from other living organisms similar to itself (i.e. that like gives rise to like) and can never originate from nonliving material.” Read also what the Science and Technology Encyclopedia (University of Chicago Press, 1999) says about the subject of biogenesis: “Biological principle maintaining that all living organisms derive from parent(s) generally similar to themselves. This long-held principle was originally established in opposition to the idea of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION of life. On the whole, it still holds good, despite variations in individuals caused by mutations, hybridization, and other genetic effects.”
Let me add that the principle of biogenesis has never been refuted. So no biological generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than the principle of biogenesis. And because the scientific evidence is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that life can never originate from nonlife, only from life similar to itself, it is an entirely reasonable and consequently scientific conclusion that there was never a time when life did not exist, and human life could come only from human life similar to itself. Now I'd like to see what kind of scientific evidence refutes the principle of biogenesis.
Related to life’s immortality, and to Darwin’s theory of evolution as well, is the principle of causality. Just as the principle of biogenesis, it has never been refuted, except by magicians who pull rabbits from “empty” hats, or by cosmologists who make the universe pop into existence from the quantum “vacuum,” or by evolutionists who produce the rich diversity and complexity of life from the first “lowest form of life.” Be as it may, according to that most rational principle a cause cannot produce an effect superior to itself. Otherwise the difference between the cause and the superior effect would have to come from nothing. Thus a Big Bang cannot produce an effect superior to itself, and the first lowest form of life of Darwinism cannot produce an effect superior to itself. Case closed. This leaves us with the only rational choice: the highest form of life that exists created the universe for the purpose of self-reproduction.
Since we know nothing higher than human life, the theory is rational and necessarily scientific that human life constitutes the seed or genotype of the phenotype universe. In other words one unifying information and life-energy field connects all things in the universe. It connects, binds, and animates all things, from the smallest structures to the greatest. Our universe is generated and sustained by human life's immortality.
Only if evolutionists manage to refute these principles of nature should we join them in the celebration of nonlife's and natural selection's incredible creative potentials. In the meantime we should study nature's life-giving systems and based on those observations infer that the universe yields human life because the cosmic system itself is the product of human life.
The fact of human life's generation from human life has been confirmed to such a degree of certainty that it would be perverse to deny its validity. So it is evident beyond any reasonable doubt that no explanation other than the generation of the universe by human life for the purpose of self-reproduction can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of life in the universe. No alternative explanations have any chance to compete with common descent from human life.
Print
Email
